Thom Hogan2012-02-07 14:27:41
D800 Article Posted

I've posted my D800 introduction article at http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm. Let's try to keep the discussion about this camera here and not spreading through my other streams ;~)
  • 45 plusses - 201 comments - 13 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-07 14:27:41
    D800 Article Posted

    I've posted my D800 introduction article at http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm. Let's try to keep the discussion about this camera here and not spreading through my other streams ;~)
  • 45 plusses - 201 comments - 13 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-07 14:27:41
    D800 Article Posted

    I've posted my D800 introduction article at http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm. Let's try to keep the discussion about this camera here and not spreading through my other streams ;~)
  • 45 plusses - 201 comments - 13 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-07 14:27:41
    D800 Article Posted

    I've posted my D800 introduction article at http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm. Let's try to keep the discussion about this camera here and not spreading through my other streams ;~)
  • 45 plusses - 201 comments - 13 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-07 14:27:41
    D800 Article Posted

    I've posted my D800 introduction article at http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm. Let's try to keep the discussion about this camera here and not spreading through my other streams ;~)
  • 45 plusses - 201 comments - 13 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-07 14:27:41
    D800 Article Posted

    I've posted my D800 introduction article at http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm. Let's try to keep the discussion about this camera here and not spreading through my other streams ;~)
  • 45 plusses - 201 comments - 13 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-07 14:27:41
    D800 Article Posted

    I've posted my D800 introduction article at http://www.bythom.com/d800intro.htm. Let's try to keep the discussion about this camera here and not spreading through my other streams ;~)
  • 45 plusses - 201 comments - 13 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-02 16:24:15
    How Many Pixels Do You Need?

    Hmm. A couple? This image certainly doesn't need many.

    We're in the midst of the lastest camera introduction waves (CES and CP+ shows being the catalyst), and megapixels seem to be on everyone's mind. Olympusians are eager to try 16mp, as are Fujifilmians. Nikonians are salavating over 36mp. Even the camera phone folk are thinking about wandering above 8mp.

    It's been interesting, though, in how many of the emails I've been getting about "should I preorder?" just how rare it was for anyone to actually ask "what will I use those pixels for?" Even the ones that do seem to often be speaking generically (e.g. "I'll use them for landscapes"). Landscapes don't tend to move, and I've yet to find many situations where I couldn't stitch a far bigger image than any rumored camera could do on its own. So, no, "landscapes" is not the answer.

    If you answer "because I want to print 48 inches wide" my question to you is going to be "how many times do you think you'll do that this year?" If the answer is a couple or a few, you don't need to buy a camera, you could probably just rent a MF camera for a couple of weeks and satisfy your big print lust for a lot less money.

    Another common answer I get is "it'll give me more cropping flexibility." In other words, you don't own the right lens and you have no idea how perspective informs an image.

    Now, this isn't to say that there aren't uses for more pixels. More pixels, all else equal, does offer us benefits. But make sure you know what those are and what they'll do for you specifically before you lust over pixels. As I've noted several times, I find myself using my D3s more than my D3x, and according to all of the emails I get about why more pixels are better, I ought to be doing the opposite (landscapes, cropping, print wider).

    One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work.

    Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?
  • 68 plusses - 150 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-02 16:24:15
    How Many Pixels Do You Need?

    Hmm. A couple? This image certainly doesn't need many.

    We're in the midst of the lastest camera introduction waves (CES and CP+ shows being the catalyst), and megapixels seem to be on everyone's mind. Olympusians are eager to try 16mp, as are Fujifilmians. Nikonians are salavating over 36mp. Even the camera phone folk are thinking about wandering above 8mp.

    It's been interesting, though, in how many of the emails I've been getting about "should I preorder?" just how rare it was for anyone to actually ask "what will I use those pixels for?" Even the ones that do seem to often be speaking generically (e.g. "I'll use them for landscapes"). Landscapes don't tend to move, and I've yet to find many situations where I couldn't stitch a far bigger image than any rumored camera could do on its own. So, no, "landscapes" is not the answer.

    If you answer "because I want to print 48 inches wide" my question to you is going to be "how many times do you think you'll do that this year?" If the answer is a couple or a few, you don't need to buy a camera, you could probably just rent a MF camera for a couple of weeks and satisfy your big print lust for a lot less money.

    Another common answer I get is "it'll give me more cropping flexibility." In other words, you don't own the right lens and you have no idea how perspective informs an image.

    Now, this isn't to say that there aren't uses for more pixels. More pixels, all else equal, does offer us benefits. But make sure you know what those are and what they'll do for you specifically before you lust over pixels. As I've noted several times, I find myself using my D3s more than my D3x, and according to all of the emails I get about why more pixels are better, I ought to be doing the opposite (landscapes, cropping, print wider).

    One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work.

    Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?
  • 68 plusses - 150 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-02 16:24:15
    How Many Pixels Do You Need?

    Hmm. A couple? This image certainly doesn't need many.

    We're in the midst of the lastest camera introduction waves (CES and CP+ shows being the catalyst), and megapixels seem to be on everyone's mind. Olympusians are eager to try 16mp, as are Fujifilmians. Nikonians are salavating over 36mp. Even the camera phone folk are thinking about wandering above 8mp.

    It's been interesting, though, in how many of the emails I've been getting about "should I preorder?" just how rare it was for anyone to actually ask "what will I use those pixels for?" Even the ones that do seem to often be speaking generically (e.g. "I'll use them for landscapes"). Landscapes don't tend to move, and I've yet to find many situations where I couldn't stitch a far bigger image than any rumored camera could do on its own. So, no, "landscapes" is not the answer.

    If you answer "because I want to print 48 inches wide" my question to you is going to be "how many times do you think you'll do that this year?" If the answer is a couple or a few, you don't need to buy a camera, you could probably just rent a MF camera for a couple of weeks and satisfy your big print lust for a lot less money.

    Another common answer I get is "it'll give me more cropping flexibility." In other words, you don't own the right lens and you have no idea how perspective informs an image.

    Now, this isn't to say that there aren't uses for more pixels. More pixels, all else equal, does offer us benefits. But make sure you know what those are and what they'll do for you specifically before you lust over pixels. As I've noted several times, I find myself using my D3s more than my D3x, and according to all of the emails I get about why more pixels are better, I ought to be doing the opposite (landscapes, cropping, print wider).

    One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work.

    Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?
  • 68 plusses - 150 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-02 16:24:15
    How Many Pixels Do You Need?

    Hmm. A couple? This image certainly doesn't need many.

    We're in the midst of the lastest camera introduction waves (CES and CP+ shows being the catalyst), and megapixels seem to be on everyone's mind. Olympusians are eager to try 16mp, as are Fujifilmians. Nikonians are salavating over 36mp. Even the camera phone folk are thinking about wandering above 8mp.

    It's been interesting, though, in how many of the emails I've been getting about "should I preorder?" just how rare it was for anyone to actually ask "what will I use those pixels for?" Even the ones that do seem to often be speaking generically (e.g. "I'll use them for landscapes"). Landscapes don't tend to move, and I've yet to find many situations where I couldn't stitch a far bigger image than any rumored camera could do on its own. So, no, "landscapes" is not the answer.

    If you answer "because I want to print 48 inches wide" my question to you is going to be "how many times do you think you'll do that this year?" If the answer is a couple or a few, you don't need to buy a camera, you could probably just rent a MF camera for a couple of weeks and satisfy your big print lust for a lot less money.

    Another common answer I get is "it'll give me more cropping flexibility." In other words, you don't own the right lens and you have no idea how perspective informs an image.

    Now, this isn't to say that there aren't uses for more pixels. More pixels, all else equal, does offer us benefits. But make sure you know what those are and what they'll do for you specifically before you lust over pixels. As I've noted several times, I find myself using my D3s more than my D3x, and according to all of the emails I get about why more pixels are better, I ought to be doing the opposite (landscapes, cropping, print wider).

    One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work.

    Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?
  • 68 plusses - 150 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-02 16:24:15
    How Many Pixels Do You Need?

    Hmm. A couple? This image certainly doesn't need many.

    We're in the midst of the lastest camera introduction waves (CES and CP+ shows being the catalyst), and megapixels seem to be on everyone's mind. Olympusians are eager to try 16mp, as are Fujifilmians. Nikonians are salavating over 36mp. Even the camera phone folk are thinking about wandering above 8mp.

    It's been interesting, though, in how many of the emails I've been getting about "should I preorder?" just how rare it was for anyone to actually ask "what will I use those pixels for?" Even the ones that do seem to often be speaking generically (e.g. "I'll use them for landscapes"). Landscapes don't tend to move, and I've yet to find many situations where I couldn't stitch a far bigger image than any rumored camera could do on its own. So, no, "landscapes" is not the answer.

    If you answer "because I want to print 48 inches wide" my question to you is going to be "how many times do you think you'll do that this year?" If the answer is a couple or a few, you don't need to buy a camera, you could probably just rent a MF camera for a couple of weeks and satisfy your big print lust for a lot less money.

    Another common answer I get is "it'll give me more cropping flexibility." In other words, you don't own the right lens and you have no idea how perspective informs an image.

    Now, this isn't to say that there aren't uses for more pixels. More pixels, all else equal, does offer us benefits. But make sure you know what those are and what they'll do for you specifically before you lust over pixels. As I've noted several times, I find myself using my D3s more than my D3x, and according to all of the emails I get about why more pixels are better, I ought to be doing the opposite (landscapes, cropping, print wider).

    One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work.

    Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?
  • 68 plusses - 150 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-02 16:24:15
    How Many Pixels Do You Need?

    Hmm. A couple? This image certainly doesn't need many.

    We're in the midst of the lastest camera introduction waves (CES and CP+ shows being the catalyst), and megapixels seem to be on everyone's mind. Olympusians are eager to try 16mp, as are Fujifilmians. Nikonians are salavating over 36mp. Even the camera phone folk are thinking about wandering above 8mp.

    It's been interesting, though, in how many of the emails I've been getting about "should I preorder?" just how rare it was for anyone to actually ask "what will I use those pixels for?" Even the ones that do seem to often be speaking generically (e.g. "I'll use them for landscapes"). Landscapes don't tend to move, and I've yet to find many situations where I couldn't stitch a far bigger image than any rumored camera could do on its own. So, no, "landscapes" is not the answer.

    If you answer "because I want to print 48 inches wide" my question to you is going to be "how many times do you think you'll do that this year?" If the answer is a couple or a few, you don't need to buy a camera, you could probably just rent a MF camera for a couple of weeks and satisfy your big print lust for a lot less money.

    Another common answer I get is "it'll give me more cropping flexibility." In other words, you don't own the right lens and you have no idea how perspective informs an image.

    Now, this isn't to say that there aren't uses for more pixels. More pixels, all else equal, does offer us benefits. But make sure you know what those are and what they'll do for you specifically before you lust over pixels. As I've noted several times, I find myself using my D3s more than my D3x, and according to all of the emails I get about why more pixels are better, I ought to be doing the opposite (landscapes, cropping, print wider).

    One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work.

    Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?
  • 68 plusses - 150 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-02 16:24:15
    How Many Pixels Do You Need?

    Hmm. A couple? This image certainly doesn't need many.

    We're in the midst of the lastest camera introduction waves (CES and CP+ shows being the catalyst), and megapixels seem to be on everyone's mind. Olympusians are eager to try 16mp, as are Fujifilmians. Nikonians are salavating over 36mp. Even the camera phone folk are thinking about wandering above 8mp.

    It's been interesting, though, in how many of the emails I've been getting about "should I preorder?" just how rare it was for anyone to actually ask "what will I use those pixels for?" Even the ones that do seem to often be speaking generically (e.g. "I'll use them for landscapes"). Landscapes don't tend to move, and I've yet to find many situations where I couldn't stitch a far bigger image than any rumored camera could do on its own. So, no, "landscapes" is not the answer.

    If you answer "because I want to print 48 inches wide" my question to you is going to be "how many times do you think you'll do that this year?" If the answer is a couple or a few, you don't need to buy a camera, you could probably just rent a MF camera for a couple of weeks and satisfy your big print lust for a lot less money.

    Another common answer I get is "it'll give me more cropping flexibility." In other words, you don't own the right lens and you have no idea how perspective informs an image.

    Now, this isn't to say that there aren't uses for more pixels. More pixels, all else equal, does offer us benefits. But make sure you know what those are and what they'll do for you specifically before you lust over pixels. As I've noted several times, I find myself using my D3s more than my D3x, and according to all of the emails I get about why more pixels are better, I ought to be doing the opposite (landscapes, cropping, print wider).

    One thing I noticed about a lot of pros in the past few years: we talk far less about pixel count than we used to. We're more often talking about lens selection, perspective, and light these days than bemoaning something our cameras can't do. Somewhere we crested a pass and have moved on to things that are more important to our work.

    Sure, we'll take some more pixels if none of the other things we count on don't go backwards, but we're in no hurry to grab more pixels. We have enough for most of our jobs. So here's a question to you: don't you have enough pixels for what you do?
  • 68 plusses - 150 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-07 16:01:22
    RESHARE:
    In case you haven't seen this. The one-page manual for Google+.

    Reshared text:
    Google+ Cheat Sheet version 2.
  • 60 plusses - 2 comments - 71 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-07 16:01:22
    RESHARE:
    In case you haven't seen this. The one-page manual for Google+.

    Reshared text:
    Google+ Cheat Sheet version 2.
  • 60 plusses - 2 comments - 71 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-07 16:01:22
    RESHARE:
    In case you haven't seen this. The one-page manual for Google+.

    Reshared text:
    Google+ Cheat Sheet version 2.
  • 60 plusses - 2 comments - 71 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-07 16:01:22
    RESHARE:
    In case you haven't seen this. The one-page manual for Google+.

    Reshared text:
    Google+ Cheat Sheet version 2.
  • 60 plusses - 2 comments - 71 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-07 16:01:22
    RESHARE:
    In case you haven't seen this. The one-page manual for Google+.

    Reshared text:
    Google+ Cheat Sheet version 2.
  • 60 plusses - 2 comments - 71 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-07 16:01:22
    RESHARE:
    In case you haven't seen this. The one-page manual for Google+.

    Reshared text:
    Google+ Cheat Sheet version 2.
  • 60 plusses - 2 comments - 71 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-07 16:01:22
    RESHARE:
    In case you haven't seen this. The one-page manual for Google+.

    Reshared text:
    Google+ Cheat Sheet version 2.
  • 60 plusses - 2 comments - 71 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-07-07 18:39:09
    My review of the Nikon D800 and D800E is now posted at: www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm.
  • 78 plusses - 77 comments - 12 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-07-07 18:39:09
    My review of the Nikon D800 and D800E is now posted at: www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm.
  • 78 plusses - 77 comments - 12 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-07-07 18:39:09
    My review of the Nikon D800 and D800E is now posted at: www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm.
  • 78 plusses - 77 comments - 12 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-07-07 18:39:09
    My review of the Nikon D800 and D800E is now posted at: www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm.
  • 78 plusses - 77 comments - 12 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-07-07 18:39:09
    My review of the Nikon D800 and D800E is now posted at: www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm.
  • 78 plusses - 77 comments - 12 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-07-07 18:39:09
    My review of the Nikon D800 and D800E is now posted at: www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm.
  • 78 plusses - 77 comments - 12 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-07-07 18:39:09
    My review of the Nikon D800 and D800E is now posted at: www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm.
  • 78 plusses - 77 comments - 12 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-08-27 13:43:07
    Quick Reflection

    Whenever you deal with reflections you have multiple decisions to make. One is compositional symmetry (do you split the horizon right at the middle of the frame?). Another is exposure symmetry (should the main item and reflection match in exposure?). A third is reflection clarity (is the reflection as clear as the original?).

    Sometimes one or more of these things is almost pre-determined by the scene in front of you; you'd have to introduce an effect or tool (e.g. graduated ND filter) to alter the reality.

    One thing I love about Alaska (and Patagonia) is that sometimes you don't have to do much of that thinking, because the image is relatively obvious in front of you and the light lingers long enough to take your time in working it. Just compose it and shoot at your own pace.

    Which is exactly what I did here just before I went to bed for the evening. The mood of the exposure reality in front of me (foreground a bit darker, far mountain in last waning light, reflection soft) was exactly the mood I felt: end of the day, with the focus slowly receding from me.

    After taking this quick and dirty "check" shot, I proceeded to make a few further decisions and shoot a 10 frame pano. Now I just have to work through the details in post (the glacier in this shot is a little weak, for instance (it's the thin diagonal white line below the peak at center going to the water line).

    One reason why I leave my quick-and-dirty camera (in this case a Panasonic GF5) in 16:9 format is to better assess pano framing. That's not perfect, as I often make my panos 2:1 or slightly more, but it's usually enough for me to assess the potential "energy" of a wide print.
  • 98 plusses - 55 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-08-27 13:43:07
    Quick Reflection

    Whenever you deal with reflections you have multiple decisions to make. One is compositional symmetry (do you split the horizon right at the middle of the frame?). Another is exposure symmetry (should the main item and reflection match in exposure?). A third is reflection clarity (is the reflection as clear as the original?).

    Sometimes one or more of these things is almost pre-determined by the scene in front of you; you'd have to introduce an effect or tool (e.g. graduated ND filter) to alter the reality.

    One thing I love about Alaska (and Patagonia) is that sometimes you don't have to do much of that thinking, because the image is relatively obvious in front of you and the light lingers long enough to take your time in working it. Just compose it and shoot at your own pace.

    Which is exactly what I did here just before I went to bed for the evening. The mood of the exposure reality in front of me (foreground a bit darker, far mountain in last waning light, reflection soft) was exactly the mood I felt: end of the day, with the focus slowly receding from me.

    After taking this quick and dirty "check" shot, I proceeded to make a few further decisions and shoot a 10 frame pano. Now I just have to work through the details in post (the glacier in this shot is a little weak, for instance (it's the thin diagonal white line below the peak at center going to the water line).

    One reason why I leave my quick-and-dirty camera (in this case a Panasonic GF5) in 16:9 format is to better assess pano framing. That's not perfect, as I often make my panos 2:1 or slightly more, but it's usually enough for me to assess the potential "energy" of a wide print.
  • 98 plusses - 55 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-08-27 13:43:07
    Quick Reflection

    Whenever you deal with reflections you have multiple decisions to make. One is compositional symmetry (do you split the horizon right at the middle of the frame?). Another is exposure symmetry (should the main item and reflection match in exposure?). A third is reflection clarity (is the reflection as clear as the original?).

    Sometimes one or more of these things is almost pre-determined by the scene in front of you; you'd have to introduce an effect or tool (e.g. graduated ND filter) to alter the reality.

    One thing I love about Alaska (and Patagonia) is that sometimes you don't have to do much of that thinking, because the image is relatively obvious in front of you and the light lingers long enough to take your time in working it. Just compose it and shoot at your own pace.

    Which is exactly what I did here just before I went to bed for the evening. The mood of the exposure reality in front of me (foreground a bit darker, far mountain in last waning light, reflection soft) was exactly the mood I felt: end of the day, with the focus slowly receding from me.

    After taking this quick and dirty "check" shot, I proceeded to make a few further decisions and shoot a 10 frame pano. Now I just have to work through the details in post (the glacier in this shot is a little weak, for instance (it's the thin diagonal white line below the peak at center going to the water line).

    One reason why I leave my quick-and-dirty camera (in this case a Panasonic GF5) in 16:9 format is to better assess pano framing. That's not perfect, as I often make my panos 2:1 or slightly more, but it's usually enough for me to assess the potential "energy" of a wide print.
  • 98 plusses - 55 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-08-27 13:43:07
    Quick Reflection

    Whenever you deal with reflections you have multiple decisions to make. One is compositional symmetry (do you split the horizon right at the middle of the frame?). Another is exposure symmetry (should the main item and reflection match in exposure?). A third is reflection clarity (is the reflection as clear as the original?).

    Sometimes one or more of these things is almost pre-determined by the scene in front of you; you'd have to introduce an effect or tool (e.g. graduated ND filter) to alter the reality.

    One thing I love about Alaska (and Patagonia) is that sometimes you don't have to do much of that thinking, because the image is relatively obvious in front of you and the light lingers long enough to take your time in working it. Just compose it and shoot at your own pace.

    Which is exactly what I did here just before I went to bed for the evening. The mood of the exposure reality in front of me (foreground a bit darker, far mountain in last waning light, reflection soft) was exactly the mood I felt: end of the day, with the focus slowly receding from me.

    After taking this quick and dirty "check" shot, I proceeded to make a few further decisions and shoot a 10 frame pano. Now I just have to work through the details in post (the glacier in this shot is a little weak, for instance (it's the thin diagonal white line below the peak at center going to the water line).

    One reason why I leave my quick-and-dirty camera (in this case a Panasonic GF5) in 16:9 format is to better assess pano framing. That's not perfect, as I often make my panos 2:1 or slightly more, but it's usually enough for me to assess the potential "energy" of a wide print.
  • 98 plusses - 55 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-08-27 13:43:07
    Quick Reflection

    Whenever you deal with reflections you have multiple decisions to make. One is compositional symmetry (do you split the horizon right at the middle of the frame?). Another is exposure symmetry (should the main item and reflection match in exposure?). A third is reflection clarity (is the reflection as clear as the original?).

    Sometimes one or more of these things is almost pre-determined by the scene in front of you; you'd have to introduce an effect or tool (e.g. graduated ND filter) to alter the reality.

    One thing I love about Alaska (and Patagonia) is that sometimes you don't have to do much of that thinking, because the image is relatively obvious in front of you and the light lingers long enough to take your time in working it. Just compose it and shoot at your own pace.

    Which is exactly what I did here just before I went to bed for the evening. The mood of the exposure reality in front of me (foreground a bit darker, far mountain in last waning light, reflection soft) was exactly the mood I felt: end of the day, with the focus slowly receding from me.

    After taking this quick and dirty "check" shot, I proceeded to make a few further decisions and shoot a 10 frame pano. Now I just have to work through the details in post (the glacier in this shot is a little weak, for instance (it's the thin diagonal white line below the peak at center going to the water line).

    One reason why I leave my quick-and-dirty camera (in this case a Panasonic GF5) in 16:9 format is to better assess pano framing. That's not perfect, as I often make my panos 2:1 or slightly more, but it's usually enough for me to assess the potential "energy" of a wide print.
  • 98 plusses - 55 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-08-27 13:43:07
    Quick Reflection

    Whenever you deal with reflections you have multiple decisions to make. One is compositional symmetry (do you split the horizon right at the middle of the frame?). Another is exposure symmetry (should the main item and reflection match in exposure?). A third is reflection clarity (is the reflection as clear as the original?).

    Sometimes one or more of these things is almost pre-determined by the scene in front of you; you'd have to introduce an effect or tool (e.g. graduated ND filter) to alter the reality.

    One thing I love about Alaska (and Patagonia) is that sometimes you don't have to do much of that thinking, because the image is relatively obvious in front of you and the light lingers long enough to take your time in working it. Just compose it and shoot at your own pace.

    Which is exactly what I did here just before I went to bed for the evening. The mood of the exposure reality in front of me (foreground a bit darker, far mountain in last waning light, reflection soft) was exactly the mood I felt: end of the day, with the focus slowly receding from me.

    After taking this quick and dirty "check" shot, I proceeded to make a few further decisions and shoot a 10 frame pano. Now I just have to work through the details in post (the glacier in this shot is a little weak, for instance (it's the thin diagonal white line below the peak at center going to the water line).

    One reason why I leave my quick-and-dirty camera (in this case a Panasonic GF5) in 16:9 format is to better assess pano framing. That's not perfect, as I often make my panos 2:1 or slightly more, but it's usually enough for me to assess the potential "energy" of a wide print.
  • 98 plusses - 55 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-08-27 13:43:07
    Quick Reflection

    Whenever you deal with reflections you have multiple decisions to make. One is compositional symmetry (do you split the horizon right at the middle of the frame?). Another is exposure symmetry (should the main item and reflection match in exposure?). A third is reflection clarity (is the reflection as clear as the original?).

    Sometimes one or more of these things is almost pre-determined by the scene in front of you; you'd have to introduce an effect or tool (e.g. graduated ND filter) to alter the reality.

    One thing I love about Alaska (and Patagonia) is that sometimes you don't have to do much of that thinking, because the image is relatively obvious in front of you and the light lingers long enough to take your time in working it. Just compose it and shoot at your own pace.

    Which is exactly what I did here just before I went to bed for the evening. The mood of the exposure reality in front of me (foreground a bit darker, far mountain in last waning light, reflection soft) was exactly the mood I felt: end of the day, with the focus slowly receding from me.

    After taking this quick and dirty "check" shot, I proceeded to make a few further decisions and shoot a 10 frame pano. Now I just have to work through the details in post (the glacier in this shot is a little weak, for instance (it's the thin diagonal white line below the peak at center going to the water line).

    One reason why I leave my quick-and-dirty camera (in this case a Panasonic GF5) in 16:9 format is to better assess pano framing. That's not perfect, as I often make my panos 2:1 or slightly more, but it's usually enough for me to assess the potential "energy" of a wide print.
  • 98 plusses - 55 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-27 15:59:21
    Saturation and Vibrance

    So what's the difference between saturation and vibrance?

    Linearity.

    Saturation is a linear color boost. Each increment you increase saturation, all colors increase together. If you increase saturation too much you will eventually blow out some colors, pushing them past one or more channel maximums. This is one reason why things like red bricks start going orange when you boost saturation too much, for example.

    Vibrance is a non-linear color boost. Things that are less saturated still get boosted, but things that are already saturated don't get boosted. In theory, a good vibrance control won't blow channels on you (and certainly never as much as saturation does).

    So what's the relevance outside of post processing? Unfortunately, Nikon cameras only have saturation controls. Indeed, one of my problems with Nikon's Picture Controls is that the special ones like Vivid and Landscape use both contrast and saturation boosts. The end result is not subtle and relatively accurate color, but rather comic book color that often pushes some things into unnatural tones. There may be times when you want to push towards comic book color, but you'll be surprised to find that the above raw image (Nikon 1) was processed with vibrance, not saturation.

    Saturation increases tend to push really bright colors into saturation, where you get what I call "nuclear colors" and loss of detail. Try it. Take the image here and push the saturation up and watch the brightest parts: the colored treetops start losing detail rapidly, as the red channel is already maxed out in this rendering. As you push the saturation up, you not only max out the red channel in more parts of the trees, but now the colors start shifting, too.

    Unfortunately, we've been trained to like saturation. It increases perceived contrast and we've been exposed to many years of photo editors and television producers pushing and pushing and pushing further. Check out the intro title sequence on Survivor, for example: someone set the saturation dial to 11. Coupled with nothing staying on the screen for more than a second, it's an outright assault on your eyes. So much so that any ad that follows the intro tends to look tame ;~).
  • 69 plusses - 47 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-27 15:59:21
    Saturation and Vibrance

    So what's the difference between saturation and vibrance?

    Linearity.

    Saturation is a linear color boost. Each increment you increase saturation, all colors increase together. If you increase saturation too much you will eventually blow out some colors, pushing them past one or more channel maximums. This is one reason why things like red bricks start going orange when you boost saturation too much, for example.

    Vibrance is a non-linear color boost. Things that are less saturated still get boosted, but things that are already saturated don't get boosted. In theory, a good vibrance control won't blow channels on you (and certainly never as much as saturation does).

    So what's the relevance outside of post processing? Unfortunately, Nikon cameras only have saturation controls. Indeed, one of my problems with Nikon's Picture Controls is that the special ones like Vivid and Landscape use both contrast and saturation boosts. The end result is not subtle and relatively accurate color, but rather comic book color that often pushes some things into unnatural tones. There may be times when you want to push towards comic book color, but you'll be surprised to find that the above raw image (Nikon 1) was processed with vibrance, not saturation.

    Saturation increases tend to push really bright colors into saturation, where you get what I call "nuclear colors" and loss of detail. Try it. Take the image here and push the saturation up and watch the brightest parts: the colored treetops start losing detail rapidly, as the red channel is already maxed out in this rendering. As you push the saturation up, you not only max out the red channel in more parts of the trees, but now the colors start shifting, too.

    Unfortunately, we've been trained to like saturation. It increases perceived contrast and we've been exposed to many years of photo editors and television producers pushing and pushing and pushing further. Check out the intro title sequence on Survivor, for example: someone set the saturation dial to 11. Coupled with nothing staying on the screen for more than a second, it's an outright assault on your eyes. So much so that any ad that follows the intro tends to look tame ;~).
  • 69 plusses - 47 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-27 15:59:21
    Saturation and Vibrance

    So what's the difference between saturation and vibrance?

    Linearity.

    Saturation is a linear color boost. Each increment you increase saturation, all colors increase together. If you increase saturation too much you will eventually blow out some colors, pushing them past one or more channel maximums. This is one reason why things like red bricks start going orange when you boost saturation too much, for example.

    Vibrance is a non-linear color boost. Things that are less saturated still get boosted, but things that are already saturated don't get boosted. In theory, a good vibrance control won't blow channels on you (and certainly never as much as saturation does).

    So what's the relevance outside of post processing? Unfortunately, Nikon cameras only have saturation controls. Indeed, one of my problems with Nikon's Picture Controls is that the special ones like Vivid and Landscape use both contrast and saturation boosts. The end result is not subtle and relatively accurate color, but rather comic book color that often pushes some things into unnatural tones. There may be times when you want to push towards comic book color, but you'll be surprised to find that the above raw image (Nikon 1) was processed with vibrance, not saturation.

    Saturation increases tend to push really bright colors into saturation, where you get what I call "nuclear colors" and loss of detail. Try it. Take the image here and push the saturation up and watch the brightest parts: the colored treetops start losing detail rapidly, as the red channel is already maxed out in this rendering. As you push the saturation up, you not only max out the red channel in more parts of the trees, but now the colors start shifting, too.

    Unfortunately, we've been trained to like saturation. It increases perceived contrast and we've been exposed to many years of photo editors and television producers pushing and pushing and pushing further. Check out the intro title sequence on Survivor, for example: someone set the saturation dial to 11. Coupled with nothing staying on the screen for more than a second, it's an outright assault on your eyes. So much so that any ad that follows the intro tends to look tame ;~).
  • 69 plusses - 47 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-27 15:59:21
    Saturation and Vibrance

    So what's the difference between saturation and vibrance?

    Linearity.

    Saturation is a linear color boost. Each increment you increase saturation, all colors increase together. If you increase saturation too much you will eventually blow out some colors, pushing them past one or more channel maximums. This is one reason why things like red bricks start going orange when you boost saturation too much, for example.

    Vibrance is a non-linear color boost. Things that are less saturated still get boosted, but things that are already saturated don't get boosted. In theory, a good vibrance control won't blow channels on you (and certainly never as much as saturation does).

    So what's the relevance outside of post processing? Unfortunately, Nikon cameras only have saturation controls. Indeed, one of my problems with Nikon's Picture Controls is that the special ones like Vivid and Landscape use both contrast and saturation boosts. The end result is not subtle and relatively accurate color, but rather comic book color that often pushes some things into unnatural tones. There may be times when you want to push towards comic book color, but you'll be surprised to find that the above raw image (Nikon 1) was processed with vibrance, not saturation.

    Saturation increases tend to push really bright colors into saturation, where you get what I call "nuclear colors" and loss of detail. Try it. Take the image here and push the saturation up and watch the brightest parts: the colored treetops start losing detail rapidly, as the red channel is already maxed out in this rendering. As you push the saturation up, you not only max out the red channel in more parts of the trees, but now the colors start shifting, too.

    Unfortunately, we've been trained to like saturation. It increases perceived contrast and we've been exposed to many years of photo editors and television producers pushing and pushing and pushing further. Check out the intro title sequence on Survivor, for example: someone set the saturation dial to 11. Coupled with nothing staying on the screen for more than a second, it's an outright assault on your eyes. So much so that any ad that follows the intro tends to look tame ;~).
  • 69 plusses - 47 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-27 15:59:21
    Saturation and Vibrance

    So what's the difference between saturation and vibrance?

    Linearity.

    Saturation is a linear color boost. Each increment you increase saturation, all colors increase together. If you increase saturation too much you will eventually blow out some colors, pushing them past one or more channel maximums. This is one reason why things like red bricks start going orange when you boost saturation too much, for example.

    Vibrance is a non-linear color boost. Things that are less saturated still get boosted, but things that are already saturated don't get boosted. In theory, a good vibrance control won't blow channels on you (and certainly never as much as saturation does).

    So what's the relevance outside of post processing? Unfortunately, Nikon cameras only have saturation controls. Indeed, one of my problems with Nikon's Picture Controls is that the special ones like Vivid and Landscape use both contrast and saturation boosts. The end result is not subtle and relatively accurate color, but rather comic book color that often pushes some things into unnatural tones. There may be times when you want to push towards comic book color, but you'll be surprised to find that the above raw image (Nikon 1) was processed with vibrance, not saturation.

    Saturation increases tend to push really bright colors into saturation, where you get what I call "nuclear colors" and loss of detail. Try it. Take the image here and push the saturation up and watch the brightest parts: the colored treetops start losing detail rapidly, as the red channel is already maxed out in this rendering. As you push the saturation up, you not only max out the red channel in more parts of the trees, but now the colors start shifting, too.

    Unfortunately, we've been trained to like saturation. It increases perceived contrast and we've been exposed to many years of photo editors and television producers pushing and pushing and pushing further. Check out the intro title sequence on Survivor, for example: someone set the saturation dial to 11. Coupled with nothing staying on the screen for more than a second, it's an outright assault on your eyes. So much so that any ad that follows the intro tends to look tame ;~).
  • 69 plusses - 47 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-27 15:59:21
    Saturation and Vibrance

    So what's the difference between saturation and vibrance?

    Linearity.

    Saturation is a linear color boost. Each increment you increase saturation, all colors increase together. If you increase saturation too much you will eventually blow out some colors, pushing them past one or more channel maximums. This is one reason why things like red bricks start going orange when you boost saturation too much, for example.

    Vibrance is a non-linear color boost. Things that are less saturated still get boosted, but things that are already saturated don't get boosted. In theory, a good vibrance control won't blow channels on you (and certainly never as much as saturation does).

    So what's the relevance outside of post processing? Unfortunately, Nikon cameras only have saturation controls. Indeed, one of my problems with Nikon's Picture Controls is that the special ones like Vivid and Landscape use both contrast and saturation boosts. The end result is not subtle and relatively accurate color, but rather comic book color that often pushes some things into unnatural tones. There may be times when you want to push towards comic book color, but you'll be surprised to find that the above raw image (Nikon 1) was processed with vibrance, not saturation.

    Saturation increases tend to push really bright colors into saturation, where you get what I call "nuclear colors" and loss of detail. Try it. Take the image here and push the saturation up and watch the brightest parts: the colored treetops start losing detail rapidly, as the red channel is already maxed out in this rendering. As you push the saturation up, you not only max out the red channel in more parts of the trees, but now the colors start shifting, too.

    Unfortunately, we've been trained to like saturation. It increases perceived contrast and we've been exposed to many years of photo editors and television producers pushing and pushing and pushing further. Check out the intro title sequence on Survivor, for example: someone set the saturation dial to 11. Coupled with nothing staying on the screen for more than a second, it's an outright assault on your eyes. So much so that any ad that follows the intro tends to look tame ;~).
  • 69 plusses - 47 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-27 15:59:21
    Saturation and Vibrance

    So what's the difference between saturation and vibrance?

    Linearity.

    Saturation is a linear color boost. Each increment you increase saturation, all colors increase together. If you increase saturation too much you will eventually blow out some colors, pushing them past one or more channel maximums. This is one reason why things like red bricks start going orange when you boost saturation too much, for example.

    Vibrance is a non-linear color boost. Things that are less saturated still get boosted, but things that are already saturated don't get boosted. In theory, a good vibrance control won't blow channels on you (and certainly never as much as saturation does).

    So what's the relevance outside of post processing? Unfortunately, Nikon cameras only have saturation controls. Indeed, one of my problems with Nikon's Picture Controls is that the special ones like Vivid and Landscape use both contrast and saturation boosts. The end result is not subtle and relatively accurate color, but rather comic book color that often pushes some things into unnatural tones. There may be times when you want to push towards comic book color, but you'll be surprised to find that the above raw image (Nikon 1) was processed with vibrance, not saturation.

    Saturation increases tend to push really bright colors into saturation, where you get what I call "nuclear colors" and loss of detail. Try it. Take the image here and push the saturation up and watch the brightest parts: the colored treetops start losing detail rapidly, as the red channel is already maxed out in this rendering. As you push the saturation up, you not only max out the red channel in more parts of the trees, but now the colors start shifting, too.

    Unfortunately, we've been trained to like saturation. It increases perceived contrast and we've been exposed to many years of photo editors and television producers pushing and pushing and pushing further. Check out the intro title sequence on Survivor, for example: someone set the saturation dial to 11. Coupled with nothing staying on the screen for more than a second, it's an outright assault on your eyes. So much so that any ad that follows the intro tends to look tame ;~).
  • 69 plusses - 47 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-07 15:44:29
    Color

    One of the persistent comments I get from digiphobes is that "film had better color." If they'd just phrase it "film had color I liked better" I might tend to agree.

    Here we've gone into the Wayback Machine to look at an old Fujifilm slide of Denali. That's definitely not a set of colors I'd tend to get on a digital body (though I should point out this is a digital scan of slide, so probably has some digitalness to its color, too).

    One of the characteristics of the Fujifilm stocks was that they had greens and reds with some yellow to them (which is a double hue shift), blues and shadows that tended towards magenta, and heavy color saturation. They weren't very color accurate, but on a light box, they had a lot of zap. Kodachrome and later Ektachromes had their own color incongruities. By that, I mean that the colors weren't accurate.

    Heck, the white balance wasn't usually accurate, as it was fixed to 5400K for outdoor film and that's only close to accurate for a mid-day setting for mid-latitudes and sea level.

    I've never quite understood the aversion of some to "digital color," because, much more than film, I have full control over what the final color really will be. I can shift greens to have some yellow if I want. Or not. I can take shadows to magenta if I want. Or not. I can dial in as much saturation as I want, and I can do it selectively. It's much more likely in the digital age that we get "accurate color" than in the film age, and it's also more likely that we get the color we want.

    I think most of the aversion some have to digital color has to do with "I hate post processing." Okay, that I can understand. But still, my digital cameras have quite a range of image quality setting ability even with JPEGs, so the aversion really must be "I don't want to do anything, I just want color to come out magically how I like it (or am used to it)." As I'll try to point out in an article or two this week, that ain't all that hard.
  • 51 plusses - 90 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-07 15:44:29
    Color

    One of the persistent comments I get from digiphobes is that "film had better color." If they'd just phrase it "film had color I liked better" I might tend to agree.

    Here we've gone into the Wayback Machine to look at an old Fujifilm slide of Denali. That's definitely not a set of colors I'd tend to get on a digital body (though I should point out this is a digital scan of slide, so probably has some digitalness to its color, too).

    One of the characteristics of the Fujifilm stocks was that they had greens and reds with some yellow to them (which is a double hue shift), blues and shadows that tended towards magenta, and heavy color saturation. They weren't very color accurate, but on a light box, they had a lot of zap. Kodachrome and later Ektachromes had their own color incongruities. By that, I mean that the colors weren't accurate.

    Heck, the white balance wasn't usually accurate, as it was fixed to 5400K for outdoor film and that's only close to accurate for a mid-day setting for mid-latitudes and sea level.

    I've never quite understood the aversion of some to "digital color," because, much more than film, I have full control over what the final color really will be. I can shift greens to have some yellow if I want. Or not. I can take shadows to magenta if I want. Or not. I can dial in as much saturation as I want, and I can do it selectively. It's much more likely in the digital age that we get "accurate color" than in the film age, and it's also more likely that we get the color we want.

    I think most of the aversion some have to digital color has to do with "I hate post processing." Okay, that I can understand. But still, my digital cameras have quite a range of image quality setting ability even with JPEGs, so the aversion really must be "I don't want to do anything, I just want color to come out magically how I like it (or am used to it)." As I'll try to point out in an article or two this week, that ain't all that hard.
  • 51 plusses - 90 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-07 15:44:29
    Color

    One of the persistent comments I get from digiphobes is that "film had better color." If they'd just phrase it "film had color I liked better" I might tend to agree.

    Here we've gone into the Wayback Machine to look at an old Fujifilm slide of Denali. That's definitely not a set of colors I'd tend to get on a digital body (though I should point out this is a digital scan of slide, so probably has some digitalness to its color, too).

    One of the characteristics of the Fujifilm stocks was that they had greens and reds with some yellow to them (which is a double hue shift), blues and shadows that tended towards magenta, and heavy color saturation. They weren't very color accurate, but on a light box, they had a lot of zap. Kodachrome and later Ektachromes had their own color incongruities. By that, I mean that the colors weren't accurate.

    Heck, the white balance wasn't usually accurate, as it was fixed to 5400K for outdoor film and that's only close to accurate for a mid-day setting for mid-latitudes and sea level.

    I've never quite understood the aversion of some to "digital color," because, much more than film, I have full control over what the final color really will be. I can shift greens to have some yellow if I want. Or not. I can take shadows to magenta if I want. Or not. I can dial in as much saturation as I want, and I can do it selectively. It's much more likely in the digital age that we get "accurate color" than in the film age, and it's also more likely that we get the color we want.

    I think most of the aversion some have to digital color has to do with "I hate post processing." Okay, that I can understand. But still, my digital cameras have quite a range of image quality setting ability even with JPEGs, so the aversion really must be "I don't want to do anything, I just want color to come out magically how I like it (or am used to it)." As I'll try to point out in an article or two this week, that ain't all that hard.
  • 51 plusses - 90 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-07 15:44:29
    Color

    One of the persistent comments I get from digiphobes is that "film had better color." If they'd just phrase it "film had color I liked better" I might tend to agree.

    Here we've gone into the Wayback Machine to look at an old Fujifilm slide of Denali. That's definitely not a set of colors I'd tend to get on a digital body (though I should point out this is a digital scan of slide, so probably has some digitalness to its color, too).

    One of the characteristics of the Fujifilm stocks was that they had greens and reds with some yellow to them (which is a double hue shift), blues and shadows that tended towards magenta, and heavy color saturation. They weren't very color accurate, but on a light box, they had a lot of zap. Kodachrome and later Ektachromes had their own color incongruities. By that, I mean that the colors weren't accurate.

    Heck, the white balance wasn't usually accurate, as it was fixed to 5400K for outdoor film and that's only close to accurate for a mid-day setting for mid-latitudes and sea level.

    I've never quite understood the aversion of some to "digital color," because, much more than film, I have full control over what the final color really will be. I can shift greens to have some yellow if I want. Or not. I can take shadows to magenta if I want. Or not. I can dial in as much saturation as I want, and I can do it selectively. It's much more likely in the digital age that we get "accurate color" than in the film age, and it's also more likely that we get the color we want.

    I think most of the aversion some have to digital color has to do with "I hate post processing." Okay, that I can understand. But still, my digital cameras have quite a range of image quality setting ability even with JPEGs, so the aversion really must be "I don't want to do anything, I just want color to come out magically how I like it (or am used to it)." As I'll try to point out in an article or two this week, that ain't all that hard.
  • 51 plusses - 90 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-07 15:44:29
    Color

    One of the persistent comments I get from digiphobes is that "film had better color." If they'd just phrase it "film had color I liked better" I might tend to agree.

    Here we've gone into the Wayback Machine to look at an old Fujifilm slide of Denali. That's definitely not a set of colors I'd tend to get on a digital body (though I should point out this is a digital scan of slide, so probably has some digitalness to its color, too).

    One of the characteristics of the Fujifilm stocks was that they had greens and reds with some yellow to them (which is a double hue shift), blues and shadows that tended towards magenta, and heavy color saturation. They weren't very color accurate, but on a light box, they had a lot of zap. Kodachrome and later Ektachromes had their own color incongruities. By that, I mean that the colors weren't accurate.

    Heck, the white balance wasn't usually accurate, as it was fixed to 5400K for outdoor film and that's only close to accurate for a mid-day setting for mid-latitudes and sea level.

    I've never quite understood the aversion of some to "digital color," because, much more than film, I have full control over what the final color really will be. I can shift greens to have some yellow if I want. Or not. I can take shadows to magenta if I want. Or not. I can dial in as much saturation as I want, and I can do it selectively. It's much more likely in the digital age that we get "accurate color" than in the film age, and it's also more likely that we get the color we want.

    I think most of the aversion some have to digital color has to do with "I hate post processing." Okay, that I can understand. But still, my digital cameras have quite a range of image quality setting ability even with JPEGs, so the aversion really must be "I don't want to do anything, I just want color to come out magically how I like it (or am used to it)." As I'll try to point out in an article or two this week, that ain't all that hard.
  • 51 plusses - 90 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-07 15:44:29
    Color

    One of the persistent comments I get from digiphobes is that "film had better color." If they'd just phrase it "film had color I liked better" I might tend to agree.

    Here we've gone into the Wayback Machine to look at an old Fujifilm slide of Denali. That's definitely not a set of colors I'd tend to get on a digital body (though I should point out this is a digital scan of slide, so probably has some digitalness to its color, too).

    One of the characteristics of the Fujifilm stocks was that they had greens and reds with some yellow to them (which is a double hue shift), blues and shadows that tended towards magenta, and heavy color saturation. They weren't very color accurate, but on a light box, they had a lot of zap. Kodachrome and later Ektachromes had their own color incongruities. By that, I mean that the colors weren't accurate.

    Heck, the white balance wasn't usually accurate, as it was fixed to 5400K for outdoor film and that's only close to accurate for a mid-day setting for mid-latitudes and sea level.

    I've never quite understood the aversion of some to "digital color," because, much more than film, I have full control over what the final color really will be. I can shift greens to have some yellow if I want. Or not. I can take shadows to magenta if I want. Or not. I can dial in as much saturation as I want, and I can do it selectively. It's much more likely in the digital age that we get "accurate color" than in the film age, and it's also more likely that we get the color we want.

    I think most of the aversion some have to digital color has to do with "I hate post processing." Okay, that I can understand. But still, my digital cameras have quite a range of image quality setting ability even with JPEGs, so the aversion really must be "I don't want to do anything, I just want color to come out magically how I like it (or am used to it)." As I'll try to point out in an article or two this week, that ain't all that hard.
  • 51 plusses - 90 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-07 15:44:29
    Color

    One of the persistent comments I get from digiphobes is that "film had better color." If they'd just phrase it "film had color I liked better" I might tend to agree.

    Here we've gone into the Wayback Machine to look at an old Fujifilm slide of Denali. That's definitely not a set of colors I'd tend to get on a digital body (though I should point out this is a digital scan of slide, so probably has some digitalness to its color, too).

    One of the characteristics of the Fujifilm stocks was that they had greens and reds with some yellow to them (which is a double hue shift), blues and shadows that tended towards magenta, and heavy color saturation. They weren't very color accurate, but on a light box, they had a lot of zap. Kodachrome and later Ektachromes had their own color incongruities. By that, I mean that the colors weren't accurate.

    Heck, the white balance wasn't usually accurate, as it was fixed to 5400K for outdoor film and that's only close to accurate for a mid-day setting for mid-latitudes and sea level.

    I've never quite understood the aversion of some to "digital color," because, much more than film, I have full control over what the final color really will be. I can shift greens to have some yellow if I want. Or not. I can take shadows to magenta if I want. Or not. I can dial in as much saturation as I want, and I can do it selectively. It's much more likely in the digital age that we get "accurate color" than in the film age, and it's also more likely that we get the color we want.

    I think most of the aversion some have to digital color has to do with "I hate post processing." Okay, that I can understand. But still, my digital cameras have quite a range of image quality setting ability even with JPEGs, so the aversion really must be "I don't want to do anything, I just want color to come out magically how I like it (or am used to it)." As I'll try to point out in an article or two this week, that ain't all that hard.
  • 51 plusses - 90 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-26 14:40:32
    Story Continued. GH2 raw. That's me on the left. That's a cheetah on the right. Obviously, there's a story here ;~). Since I seem to be here to write about it, obviously the story didn't end the way you think it did from just looking at the image. First, about the image itself. I've done very little to it. I cropped the bottom to better fit the format I use on this site. I sharpened it. I boosted the colors a bit. That's basically the full post processing work. This isn't a double exposure, I am indeed in front of the cheetah and thus there's no optical illusion involved in terms of placement. So what the heck; did I really try to run away from a cheetah? Last time I checked I can't run 60 mph. Okay, here's the inside scoop: the cheetah is a metal sculpture that can be moved. Over the course of the week I was at Kirkman's Kamp this year, we moved said cheetah all over the place (it's heavy, that wasn't easy) doing all kinds of set up shots with it. It even showed up for our traditional bush breakfast one morning. Kirkman's had just acquired the sculpture, so they really hadn't a good idea of what to do with it yet. The staff watched with great curiosity as I kept trying to figure out photos to do with it. I'm pretty sure they thought I was crazy. But it isn't every day that I have a very nice cheetah statue to play with--I was going to make the most of it. This image, therefore, is a complete set up, obviously. We were up before sunrise every morning and off on safari, so said cheetah became part of my ponderings over my earning morning tea. Now about the shot. There are intentional issues with the shot. If the shot were too perfect, you'd suspect that it was a set up. Thus, having the camera slightly unlevel and part of me cut off are false cues that attempt to get you to believe that this was a spontaneous "catch" and not something set up. Obviously, since the statue is metal, we needed to silouette it, which meant either a dawn or dusk shot. I wanted you to fill in the story with this shot (cheetah about to take down human), and I was trying to come up with a number of small things to get you to believe that story. Note, for example, that I am really moving (see the blur in my foot). Like last week's "story," this is about previsualization. I saw this shot long before we captured it. It was more of the matter of getting the elements aligned "right", just like last week, only I had more control of them this time. Mom? Mom? Mom, you can start breathing again. The only way that cheetah was going to hurt me is if I dropped it on my foot while moving it around.
  • 75 plusses - 41 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-26 14:40:32
    Story Continued. GH2 raw. That's me on the left. That's a cheetah on the right. Obviously, there's a story here ;~). Since I seem to be here to write about it, obviously the story didn't end the way you think it did from just looking at the image. First, about the image itself. I've done very little to it. I cropped the bottom to better fit the format I use on this site. I sharpened it. I boosted the colors a bit. That's basically the full post processing work. This isn't a double exposure, I am indeed in front of the cheetah and thus there's no optical illusion involved in terms of placement. So what the heck; did I really try to run away from a cheetah? Last time I checked I can't run 60 mph. Okay, here's the inside scoop: the cheetah is a metal sculpture that can be moved. Over the course of the week I was at Kirkman's Kamp this year, we moved said cheetah all over the place (it's heavy, that wasn't easy) doing all kinds of set up shots with it. It even showed up for our traditional bush breakfast one morning. Kirkman's had just acquired the sculpture, so they really hadn't a good idea of what to do with it yet. The staff watched with great curiosity as I kept trying to figure out photos to do with it. I'm pretty sure they thought I was crazy. But it isn't every day that I have a very nice cheetah statue to play with--I was going to make the most of it. This image, therefore, is a complete set up, obviously. We were up before sunrise every morning and off on safari, so said cheetah became part of my ponderings over my earning morning tea. Now about the shot. There are intentional issues with the shot. If the shot were too perfect, you'd suspect that it was a set up. Thus, having the camera slightly unlevel and part of me cut off are false cues that attempt to get you to believe that this was a spontaneous "catch" and not something set up. Obviously, since the statue is metal, we needed to silouette it, which meant either a dawn or dusk shot. I wanted you to fill in the story with this shot (cheetah about to take down human), and I was trying to come up with a number of small things to get you to believe that story. Note, for example, that I am really moving (see the blur in my foot). Like last week's "story," this is about previsualization. I saw this shot long before we captured it. It was more of the matter of getting the elements aligned "right", just like last week, only I had more control of them this time. Mom? Mom? Mom, you can start breathing again. The only way that cheetah was going to hurt me is if I dropped it on my foot while moving it around.
  • 75 plusses - 41 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-26 14:40:32
    Story Continued. GH2 raw. That's me on the left. That's a cheetah on the right. Obviously, there's a story here ;~). Since I seem to be here to write about it, obviously the story didn't end the way you think it did from just looking at the image. First, about the image itself. I've done very little to it. I cropped the bottom to better fit the format I use on this site. I sharpened it. I boosted the colors a bit. That's basically the full post processing work. This isn't a double exposure, I am indeed in front of the cheetah and thus there's no optical illusion involved in terms of placement. So what the heck; did I really try to run away from a cheetah? Last time I checked I can't run 60 mph. Okay, here's the inside scoop: the cheetah is a metal sculpture that can be moved. Over the course of the week I was at Kirkman's Kamp this year, we moved said cheetah all over the place (it's heavy, that wasn't easy) doing all kinds of set up shots with it. It even showed up for our traditional bush breakfast one morning. Kirkman's had just acquired the sculpture, so they really hadn't a good idea of what to do with it yet. The staff watched with great curiosity as I kept trying to figure out photos to do with it. I'm pretty sure they thought I was crazy. But it isn't every day that I have a very nice cheetah statue to play with--I was going to make the most of it. This image, therefore, is a complete set up, obviously. We were up before sunrise every morning and off on safari, so said cheetah became part of my ponderings over my earning morning tea. Now about the shot. There are intentional issues with the shot. If the shot were too perfect, you'd suspect that it was a set up. Thus, having the camera slightly unlevel and part of me cut off are false cues that attempt to get you to believe that this was a spontaneous "catch" and not something set up. Obviously, since the statue is metal, we needed to silouette it, which meant either a dawn or dusk shot. I wanted you to fill in the story with this shot (cheetah about to take down human), and I was trying to come up with a number of small things to get you to believe that story. Note, for example, that I am really moving (see the blur in my foot). Like last week's "story," this is about previsualization. I saw this shot long before we captured it. It was more of the matter of getting the elements aligned "right", just like last week, only I had more control of them this time. Mom? Mom? Mom, you can start breathing again. The only way that cheetah was going to hurt me is if I dropped it on my foot while moving it around.
  • 75 plusses - 41 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-26 14:40:32
    Story Continued. GH2 raw. That's me on the left. That's a cheetah on the right. Obviously, there's a story here ;~). Since I seem to be here to write about it, obviously the story didn't end the way you think it did from just looking at the image. First, about the image itself. I've done very little to it. I cropped the bottom to better fit the format I use on this site. I sharpened it. I boosted the colors a bit. That's basically the full post processing work. This isn't a double exposure, I am indeed in front of the cheetah and thus there's no optical illusion involved in terms of placement. So what the heck; did I really try to run away from a cheetah? Last time I checked I can't run 60 mph. Okay, here's the inside scoop: the cheetah is a metal sculpture that can be moved. Over the course of the week I was at Kirkman's Kamp this year, we moved said cheetah all over the place (it's heavy, that wasn't easy) doing all kinds of set up shots with it. It even showed up for our traditional bush breakfast one morning. Kirkman's had just acquired the sculpture, so they really hadn't a good idea of what to do with it yet. The staff watched with great curiosity as I kept trying to figure out photos to do with it. I'm pretty sure they thought I was crazy. But it isn't every day that I have a very nice cheetah statue to play with--I was going to make the most of it. This image, therefore, is a complete set up, obviously. We were up before sunrise every morning and off on safari, so said cheetah became part of my ponderings over my earning morning tea. Now about the shot. There are intentional issues with the shot. If the shot were too perfect, you'd suspect that it was a set up. Thus, having the camera slightly unlevel and part of me cut off are false cues that attempt to get you to believe that this was a spontaneous "catch" and not something set up. Obviously, since the statue is metal, we needed to silouette it, which meant either a dawn or dusk shot. I wanted you to fill in the story with this shot (cheetah about to take down human), and I was trying to come up with a number of small things to get you to believe that story. Note, for example, that I am really moving (see the blur in my foot). Like last week's "story," this is about previsualization. I saw this shot long before we captured it. It was more of the matter of getting the elements aligned "right", just like last week, only I had more control of them this time. Mom? Mom? Mom, you can start breathing again. The only way that cheetah was going to hurt me is if I dropped it on my foot while moving it around.
  • 75 plusses - 41 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-26 14:40:32
    Story Continued. GH2 raw. That's me on the left. That's a cheetah on the right. Obviously, there's a story here ;~). Since I seem to be here to write about it, obviously the story didn't end the way you think it did from just looking at the image. First, about the image itself. I've done very little to it. I cropped the bottom to better fit the format I use on this site. I sharpened it. I boosted the colors a bit. That's basically the full post processing work. This isn't a double exposure, I am indeed in front of the cheetah and thus there's no optical illusion involved in terms of placement. So what the heck; did I really try to run away from a cheetah? Last time I checked I can't run 60 mph. Okay, here's the inside scoop: the cheetah is a metal sculpture that can be moved. Over the course of the week I was at Kirkman's Kamp this year, we moved said cheetah all over the place (it's heavy, that wasn't easy) doing all kinds of set up shots with it. It even showed up for our traditional bush breakfast one morning. Kirkman's had just acquired the sculpture, so they really hadn't a good idea of what to do with it yet. The staff watched with great curiosity as I kept trying to figure out photos to do with it. I'm pretty sure they thought I was crazy. But it isn't every day that I have a very nice cheetah statue to play with--I was going to make the most of it. This image, therefore, is a complete set up, obviously. We were up before sunrise every morning and off on safari, so said cheetah became part of my ponderings over my earning morning tea. Now about the shot. There are intentional issues with the shot. If the shot were too perfect, you'd suspect that it was a set up. Thus, having the camera slightly unlevel and part of me cut off are false cues that attempt to get you to believe that this was a spontaneous "catch" and not something set up. Obviously, since the statue is metal, we needed to silouette it, which meant either a dawn or dusk shot. I wanted you to fill in the story with this shot (cheetah about to take down human), and I was trying to come up with a number of small things to get you to believe that story. Note, for example, that I am really moving (see the blur in my foot). Like last week's "story," this is about previsualization. I saw this shot long before we captured it. It was more of the matter of getting the elements aligned "right", just like last week, only I had more control of them this time. Mom? Mom? Mom, you can start breathing again. The only way that cheetah was going to hurt me is if I dropped it on my foot while moving it around.
  • 75 plusses - 41 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-26 14:40:32
    Story Continued. GH2 raw. That's me on the left. That's a cheetah on the right. Obviously, there's a story here ;~). Since I seem to be here to write about it, obviously the story didn't end the way you think it did from just looking at the image. First, about the image itself. I've done very little to it. I cropped the bottom to better fit the format I use on this site. I sharpened it. I boosted the colors a bit. That's basically the full post processing work. This isn't a double exposure, I am indeed in front of the cheetah and thus there's no optical illusion involved in terms of placement. So what the heck; did I really try to run away from a cheetah? Last time I checked I can't run 60 mph. Okay, here's the inside scoop: the cheetah is a metal sculpture that can be moved. Over the course of the week I was at Kirkman's Kamp this year, we moved said cheetah all over the place (it's heavy, that wasn't easy) doing all kinds of set up shots with it. It even showed up for our traditional bush breakfast one morning. Kirkman's had just acquired the sculpture, so they really hadn't a good idea of what to do with it yet. The staff watched with great curiosity as I kept trying to figure out photos to do with it. I'm pretty sure they thought I was crazy. But it isn't every day that I have a very nice cheetah statue to play with--I was going to make the most of it. This image, therefore, is a complete set up, obviously. We were up before sunrise every morning and off on safari, so said cheetah became part of my ponderings over my earning morning tea. Now about the shot. There are intentional issues with the shot. If the shot were too perfect, you'd suspect that it was a set up. Thus, having the camera slightly unlevel and part of me cut off are false cues that attempt to get you to believe that this was a spontaneous "catch" and not something set up. Obviously, since the statue is metal, we needed to silouette it, which meant either a dawn or dusk shot. I wanted you to fill in the story with this shot (cheetah about to take down human), and I was trying to come up with a number of small things to get you to believe that story. Note, for example, that I am really moving (see the blur in my foot). Like last week's "story," this is about previsualization. I saw this shot long before we captured it. It was more of the matter of getting the elements aligned "right", just like last week, only I had more control of them this time. Mom? Mom? Mom, you can start breathing again. The only way that cheetah was going to hurt me is if I dropped it on my foot while moving it around.
  • 75 plusses - 41 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-26 14:40:32
    Story Continued. GH2 raw. That's me on the left. That's a cheetah on the right. Obviously, there's a story here ;~). Since I seem to be here to write about it, obviously the story didn't end the way you think it did from just looking at the image. First, about the image itself. I've done very little to it. I cropped the bottom to better fit the format I use on this site. I sharpened it. I boosted the colors a bit. That's basically the full post processing work. This isn't a double exposure, I am indeed in front of the cheetah and thus there's no optical illusion involved in terms of placement. So what the heck; did I really try to run away from a cheetah? Last time I checked I can't run 60 mph. Okay, here's the inside scoop: the cheetah is a metal sculpture that can be moved. Over the course of the week I was at Kirkman's Kamp this year, we moved said cheetah all over the place (it's heavy, that wasn't easy) doing all kinds of set up shots with it. It even showed up for our traditional bush breakfast one morning. Kirkman's had just acquired the sculpture, so they really hadn't a good idea of what to do with it yet. The staff watched with great curiosity as I kept trying to figure out photos to do with it. I'm pretty sure they thought I was crazy. But it isn't every day that I have a very nice cheetah statue to play with--I was going to make the most of it. This image, therefore, is a complete set up, obviously. We were up before sunrise every morning and off on safari, so said cheetah became part of my ponderings over my earning morning tea. Now about the shot. There are intentional issues with the shot. If the shot were too perfect, you'd suspect that it was a set up. Thus, having the camera slightly unlevel and part of me cut off are false cues that attempt to get you to believe that this was a spontaneous "catch" and not something set up. Obviously, since the statue is metal, we needed to silouette it, which meant either a dawn or dusk shot. I wanted you to fill in the story with this shot (cheetah about to take down human), and I was trying to come up with a number of small things to get you to believe that story. Note, for example, that I am really moving (see the blur in my foot). Like last week's "story," this is about previsualization. I saw this shot long before we captured it. It was more of the matter of getting the elements aligned "right", just like last week, only I had more control of them this time. Mom? Mom? Mom, you can start breathing again. The only way that cheetah was going to hurt me is if I dropped it on my foot while moving it around.
  • 75 plusses - 41 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-01 19:38:45
    Good Enough?

    I'm going to drop back to a previous image I've shown, mostly because being without power for three days I'm way behind on a bunch of things and don't have time to prepare a new image this week. But this image addresses a question I get a lot these days: is m4/3 good enough?

    This is a three image stitch. It looks pretty darned fine to me printed large (and you then become aware of the photographer on the sand and the scale of the place). As many of you know, while I pursue every last iota of quality I can get from my images, I'm also highly pragmatic, too. It's an odd combination.

    Would I have rather hiked the six miles to this location with my D3x and 14-24mm lens? No. I still would have used image stitching, and I would have needed my big tripod, too. I'm not a fool: if I can achieve the same final result carrying 10 pounds less gear, I'm going to do it.

    Okay, so is it the same final result? Am I losing a little detail in the shadows, for example? Yes, I am, but I kind of like the old Velvia quick-drop-to-black effect, and if I had really been concerned I would have just done exposure stitches, too.

    I'm getting ready for another trip with a lot of long hikes in it, and I'm contemplating the kit I'll take. I have little doubt I'll pick something smaller and mirrorless, simply because it allows me more ability to range on and off the trail, and with care, I don't really give a lot up. Indeed, for landscape/scenic work, there are techniques that allow me to give essentially nothing up except a bit more time in shooting and processing.
  • 61 plusses - 59 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-01 19:38:45
    Good Enough?

    I'm going to drop back to a previous image I've shown, mostly because being without power for three days I'm way behind on a bunch of things and don't have time to prepare a new image this week. But this image addresses a question I get a lot these days: is m4/3 good enough?

    This is a three image stitch. It looks pretty darned fine to me printed large (and you then become aware of the photographer on the sand and the scale of the place). As many of you know, while I pursue every last iota of quality I can get from my images, I'm also highly pragmatic, too. It's an odd combination.

    Would I have rather hiked the six miles to this location with my D3x and 14-24mm lens? No. I still would have used image stitching, and I would have needed my big tripod, too. I'm not a fool: if I can achieve the same final result carrying 10 pounds less gear, I'm going to do it.

    Okay, so is it the same final result? Am I losing a little detail in the shadows, for example? Yes, I am, but I kind of like the old Velvia quick-drop-to-black effect, and if I had really been concerned I would have just done exposure stitches, too.

    I'm getting ready for another trip with a lot of long hikes in it, and I'm contemplating the kit I'll take. I have little doubt I'll pick something smaller and mirrorless, simply because it allows me more ability to range on and off the trail, and with care, I don't really give a lot up. Indeed, for landscape/scenic work, there are techniques that allow me to give essentially nothing up except a bit more time in shooting and processing.
  • 61 plusses - 59 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-01 19:38:45
    Good Enough?

    I'm going to drop back to a previous image I've shown, mostly because being without power for three days I'm way behind on a bunch of things and don't have time to prepare a new image this week. But this image addresses a question I get a lot these days: is m4/3 good enough?

    This is a three image stitch. It looks pretty darned fine to me printed large (and you then become aware of the photographer on the sand and the scale of the place). As many of you know, while I pursue every last iota of quality I can get from my images, I'm also highly pragmatic, too. It's an odd combination.

    Would I have rather hiked the six miles to this location with my D3x and 14-24mm lens? No. I still would have used image stitching, and I would have needed my big tripod, too. I'm not a fool: if I can achieve the same final result carrying 10 pounds less gear, I'm going to do it.

    Okay, so is it the same final result? Am I losing a little detail in the shadows, for example? Yes, I am, but I kind of like the old Velvia quick-drop-to-black effect, and if I had really been concerned I would have just done exposure stitches, too.

    I'm getting ready for another trip with a lot of long hikes in it, and I'm contemplating the kit I'll take. I have little doubt I'll pick something smaller and mirrorless, simply because it allows me more ability to range on and off the trail, and with care, I don't really give a lot up. Indeed, for landscape/scenic work, there are techniques that allow me to give essentially nothing up except a bit more time in shooting and processing.
  • 61 plusses - 59 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-01 19:38:45
    Good Enough?

    I'm going to drop back to a previous image I've shown, mostly because being without power for three days I'm way behind on a bunch of things and don't have time to prepare a new image this week. But this image addresses a question I get a lot these days: is m4/3 good enough?

    This is a three image stitch. It looks pretty darned fine to me printed large (and you then become aware of the photographer on the sand and the scale of the place). As many of you know, while I pursue every last iota of quality I can get from my images, I'm also highly pragmatic, too. It's an odd combination.

    Would I have rather hiked the six miles to this location with my D3x and 14-24mm lens? No. I still would have used image stitching, and I would have needed my big tripod, too. I'm not a fool: if I can achieve the same final result carrying 10 pounds less gear, I'm going to do it.

    Okay, so is it the same final result? Am I losing a little detail in the shadows, for example? Yes, I am, but I kind of like the old Velvia quick-drop-to-black effect, and if I had really been concerned I would have just done exposure stitches, too.

    I'm getting ready for another trip with a lot of long hikes in it, and I'm contemplating the kit I'll take. I have little doubt I'll pick something smaller and mirrorless, simply because it allows me more ability to range on and off the trail, and with care, I don't really give a lot up. Indeed, for landscape/scenic work, there are techniques that allow me to give essentially nothing up except a bit more time in shooting and processing.
  • 61 plusses - 59 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-01 19:38:45
    Good Enough?

    I'm going to drop back to a previous image I've shown, mostly because being without power for three days I'm way behind on a bunch of things and don't have time to prepare a new image this week. But this image addresses a question I get a lot these days: is m4/3 good enough?

    This is a three image stitch. It looks pretty darned fine to me printed large (and you then become aware of the photographer on the sand and the scale of the place). As many of you know, while I pursue every last iota of quality I can get from my images, I'm also highly pragmatic, too. It's an odd combination.

    Would I have rather hiked the six miles to this location with my D3x and 14-24mm lens? No. I still would have used image stitching, and I would have needed my big tripod, too. I'm not a fool: if I can achieve the same final result carrying 10 pounds less gear, I'm going to do it.

    Okay, so is it the same final result? Am I losing a little detail in the shadows, for example? Yes, I am, but I kind of like the old Velvia quick-drop-to-black effect, and if I had really been concerned I would have just done exposure stitches, too.

    I'm getting ready for another trip with a lot of long hikes in it, and I'm contemplating the kit I'll take. I have little doubt I'll pick something smaller and mirrorless, simply because it allows me more ability to range on and off the trail, and with care, I don't really give a lot up. Indeed, for landscape/scenic work, there are techniques that allow me to give essentially nothing up except a bit more time in shooting and processing.
  • 61 plusses - 59 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-01 19:38:45
    Good Enough?

    I'm going to drop back to a previous image I've shown, mostly because being without power for three days I'm way behind on a bunch of things and don't have time to prepare a new image this week. But this image addresses a question I get a lot these days: is m4/3 good enough?

    This is a three image stitch. It looks pretty darned fine to me printed large (and you then become aware of the photographer on the sand and the scale of the place). As many of you know, while I pursue every last iota of quality I can get from my images, I'm also highly pragmatic, too. It's an odd combination.

    Would I have rather hiked the six miles to this location with my D3x and 14-24mm lens? No. I still would have used image stitching, and I would have needed my big tripod, too. I'm not a fool: if I can achieve the same final result carrying 10 pounds less gear, I'm going to do it.

    Okay, so is it the same final result? Am I losing a little detail in the shadows, for example? Yes, I am, but I kind of like the old Velvia quick-drop-to-black effect, and if I had really been concerned I would have just done exposure stitches, too.

    I'm getting ready for another trip with a lot of long hikes in it, and I'm contemplating the kit I'll take. I have little doubt I'll pick something smaller and mirrorless, simply because it allows me more ability to range on and off the trail, and with care, I don't really give a lot up. Indeed, for landscape/scenic work, there are techniques that allow me to give essentially nothing up except a bit more time in shooting and processing.
  • 61 plusses - 59 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-01 19:38:45
    Good Enough?

    I'm going to drop back to a previous image I've shown, mostly because being without power for three days I'm way behind on a bunch of things and don't have time to prepare a new image this week. But this image addresses a question I get a lot these days: is m4/3 good enough?

    This is a three image stitch. It looks pretty darned fine to me printed large (and you then become aware of the photographer on the sand and the scale of the place). As many of you know, while I pursue every last iota of quality I can get from my images, I'm also highly pragmatic, too. It's an odd combination.

    Would I have rather hiked the six miles to this location with my D3x and 14-24mm lens? No. I still would have used image stitching, and I would have needed my big tripod, too. I'm not a fool: if I can achieve the same final result carrying 10 pounds less gear, I'm going to do it.

    Okay, so is it the same final result? Am I losing a little detail in the shadows, for example? Yes, I am, but I kind of like the old Velvia quick-drop-to-black effect, and if I had really been concerned I would have just done exposure stitches, too.

    I'm getting ready for another trip with a lot of long hikes in it, and I'm contemplating the kit I'll take. I have little doubt I'll pick something smaller and mirrorless, simply because it allows me more ability to range on and off the trail, and with care, I don't really give a lot up. Indeed, for landscape/scenic work, there are techniques that allow me to give essentially nothing up except a bit more time in shooting and processing.
  • 61 plusses - 59 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-27 16:37:31
    Start with a V1, add a mode dial, dual control dials, a programmable function button, a hot shoe, and an internal flash and you get this. Of course, the P7100 might be harder to sell ;~).
  • 49 plusses - 87 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-27 16:37:31
    Start with a V1, add a mode dial, dual control dials, a programmable function button, a hot shoe, and an internal flash and you get this. Of course, the P7100 might be harder to sell ;~).
  • 49 plusses - 87 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-27 16:37:31
    Start with a V1, add a mode dial, dual control dials, a programmable function button, a hot shoe, and an internal flash and you get this. Of course, the P7100 might be harder to sell ;~).
  • 49 plusses - 87 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-27 16:37:31
    Start with a V1, add a mode dial, dual control dials, a programmable function button, a hot shoe, and an internal flash and you get this. Of course, the P7100 might be harder to sell ;~).
  • 49 plusses - 87 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-27 16:37:31
    Start with a V1, add a mode dial, dual control dials, a programmable function button, a hot shoe, and an internal flash and you get this. Of course, the P7100 might be harder to sell ;~).
  • 49 plusses - 87 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-27 16:37:31
    Start with a V1, add a mode dial, dual control dials, a programmable function button, a hot shoe, and an internal flash and you get this. Of course, the P7100 might be harder to sell ;~).
  • 49 plusses - 87 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-09-27 16:37:31
    Start with a V1, add a mode dial, dual control dials, a programmable function button, a hot shoe, and an internal flash and you get this. Of course, the P7100 might be harder to sell ;~).
  • 49 plusses - 87 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-10-10 14:47:26
    Downdraft

    D100 NEF. Big horizontal landscapes require big decisions. In my thinking either the land needs to be big (and the sky small), or the sky needs to be big (and the land small).

    This is one of a series of images I took over the course of five years that I refer to as my Big Sky series (many of which were taken in the Big Sky state, Montana, though this one is in the state just below it: Wyoming). My decision is usually made easy by a simple question: what dominates what? In this case, the sky is obviously bigger and more dramatic than one of the most dramatic mountain ranges in the US.

    So it's got to be a Big Sky shot, not a Big Land shot.

    I wish I had been more into panoramas and had a really high resolution sensor when this situation happened back in 2002. What you can't see is what's going on to the right and also in back of me, which was just as dramatic, maybe even more so. Indeed, a few minutes after this shot I found myself in the middle of a wild horse stampede, a sight and sound I'll never forget.

    I chose this shot, though, due to the iconic mountains over the slightly less iconic and dramatic peaks to the right, because it says something: the grandest peak (pardon the pun) in the range is a mere trifle compared to just this one single downdraft. Moreover, the peak's and downdraft's shape mirror one another.

    Note the date. I need to rework the image with everything I've learned about post processing over the years: the highlights are a bit rough, and I'm sure I could pull a bit more contrast out of the mountains, as well. Yep, not only have cameras gotten better since 2002, so have I.
  • 64 plusses - 28 comments - 16 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-10-10 14:47:26
    Downdraft

    D100 NEF. Big horizontal landscapes require big decisions. In my thinking either the land needs to be big (and the sky small), or the sky needs to be big (and the land small).

    This is one of a series of images I took over the course of five years that I refer to as my Big Sky series (many of which were taken in the Big Sky state, Montana, though this one is in the state just below it: Wyoming). My decision is usually made easy by a simple question: what dominates what? In this case, the sky is obviously bigger and more dramatic than one of the most dramatic mountain ranges in the US.

    So it's got to be a Big Sky shot, not a Big Land shot.

    I wish I had been more into panoramas and had a really high resolution sensor when this situation happened back in 2002. What you can't see is what's going on to the right and also in back of me, which was just as dramatic, maybe even more so. Indeed, a few minutes after this shot I found myself in the middle of a wild horse stampede, a sight and sound I'll never forget.

    I chose this shot, though, due to the iconic mountains over the slightly less iconic and dramatic peaks to the right, because it says something: the grandest peak (pardon the pun) in the range is a mere trifle compared to just this one single downdraft. Moreover, the peak's and downdraft's shape mirror one another.

    Note the date. I need to rework the image with everything I've learned about post processing over the years: the highlights are a bit rough, and I'm sure I could pull a bit more contrast out of the mountains, as well. Yep, not only have cameras gotten better since 2002, so have I.
  • 64 plusses - 28 comments - 16 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-10-10 14:47:26
    Downdraft

    D100 NEF. Big horizontal landscapes require big decisions. In my thinking either the land needs to be big (and the sky small), or the sky needs to be big (and the land small).

    This is one of a series of images I took over the course of five years that I refer to as my Big Sky series (many of which were taken in the Big Sky state, Montana, though this one is in the state just below it: Wyoming). My decision is usually made easy by a simple question: what dominates what? In this case, the sky is obviously bigger and more dramatic than one of the most dramatic mountain ranges in the US.

    So it's got to be a Big Sky shot, not a Big Land shot.

    I wish I had been more into panoramas and had a really high resolution sensor when this situation happened back in 2002. What you can't see is what's going on to the right and also in back of me, which was just as dramatic, maybe even more so. Indeed, a few minutes after this shot I found myself in the middle of a wild horse stampede, a sight and sound I'll never forget.

    I chose this shot, though, due to the iconic mountains over the slightly less iconic and dramatic peaks to the right, because it says something: the grandest peak (pardon the pun) in the range is a mere trifle compared to just this one single downdraft. Moreover, the peak's and downdraft's shape mirror one another.

    Note the date. I need to rework the image with everything I've learned about post processing over the years: the highlights are a bit rough, and I'm sure I could pull a bit more contrast out of the mountains, as well. Yep, not only have cameras gotten better since 2002, so have I.
  • 64 plusses - 28 comments - 16 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-10-10 14:47:26
    Downdraft

    D100 NEF. Big horizontal landscapes require big decisions. In my thinking either the land needs to be big (and the sky small), or the sky needs to be big (and the land small).

    This is one of a series of images I took over the course of five years that I refer to as my Big Sky series (many of which were taken in the Big Sky state, Montana, though this one is in the state just below it: Wyoming). My decision is usually made easy by a simple question: what dominates what? In this case, the sky is obviously bigger and more dramatic than one of the most dramatic mountain ranges in the US.

    So it's got to be a Big Sky shot, not a Big Land shot.

    I wish I had been more into panoramas and had a really high resolution sensor when this situation happened back in 2002. What you can't see is what's going on to the right and also in back of me, which was just as dramatic, maybe even more so. Indeed, a few minutes after this shot I found myself in the middle of a wild horse stampede, a sight and sound I'll never forget.

    I chose this shot, though, due to the iconic mountains over the slightly less iconic and dramatic peaks to the right, because it says something: the grandest peak (pardon the pun) in the range is a mere trifle compared to just this one single downdraft. Moreover, the peak's and downdraft's shape mirror one another.

    Note the date. I need to rework the image with everything I've learned about post processing over the years: the highlights are a bit rough, and I'm sure I could pull a bit more contrast out of the mountains, as well. Yep, not only have cameras gotten better since 2002, so have I.
  • 64 plusses - 28 comments - 16 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-10-10 14:47:26
    Downdraft

    D100 NEF. Big horizontal landscapes require big decisions. In my thinking either the land needs to be big (and the sky small), or the sky needs to be big (and the land small).

    This is one of a series of images I took over the course of five years that I refer to as my Big Sky series (many of which were taken in the Big Sky state, Montana, though this one is in the state just below it: Wyoming). My decision is usually made easy by a simple question: what dominates what? In this case, the sky is obviously bigger and more dramatic than one of the most dramatic mountain ranges in the US.

    So it's got to be a Big Sky shot, not a Big Land shot.

    I wish I had been more into panoramas and had a really high resolution sensor when this situation happened back in 2002. What you can't see is what's going on to the right and also in back of me, which was just as dramatic, maybe even more so. Indeed, a few minutes after this shot I found myself in the middle of a wild horse stampede, a sight and sound I'll never forget.

    I chose this shot, though, due to the iconic mountains over the slightly less iconic and dramatic peaks to the right, because it says something: the grandest peak (pardon the pun) in the range is a mere trifle compared to just this one single downdraft. Moreover, the peak's and downdraft's shape mirror one another.

    Note the date. I need to rework the image with everything I've learned about post processing over the years: the highlights are a bit rough, and I'm sure I could pull a bit more contrast out of the mountains, as well. Yep, not only have cameras gotten better since 2002, so have I.
  • 64 plusses - 28 comments - 16 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-10-10 14:47:26
    Downdraft

    D100 NEF. Big horizontal landscapes require big decisions. In my thinking either the land needs to be big (and the sky small), or the sky needs to be big (and the land small).

    This is one of a series of images I took over the course of five years that I refer to as my Big Sky series (many of which were taken in the Big Sky state, Montana, though this one is in the state just below it: Wyoming). My decision is usually made easy by a simple question: what dominates what? In this case, the sky is obviously bigger and more dramatic than one of the most dramatic mountain ranges in the US.

    So it's got to be a Big Sky shot, not a Big Land shot.

    I wish I had been more into panoramas and had a really high resolution sensor when this situation happened back in 2002. What you can't see is what's going on to the right and also in back of me, which was just as dramatic, maybe even more so. Indeed, a few minutes after this shot I found myself in the middle of a wild horse stampede, a sight and sound I'll never forget.

    I chose this shot, though, due to the iconic mountains over the slightly less iconic and dramatic peaks to the right, because it says something: the grandest peak (pardon the pun) in the range is a mere trifle compared to just this one single downdraft. Moreover, the peak's and downdraft's shape mirror one another.

    Note the date. I need to rework the image with everything I've learned about post processing over the years: the highlights are a bit rough, and I'm sure I could pull a bit more contrast out of the mountains, as well. Yep, not only have cameras gotten better since 2002, so have I.
  • 64 plusses - 28 comments - 16 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-10-10 14:47:26
    Downdraft

    D100 NEF. Big horizontal landscapes require big decisions. In my thinking either the land needs to be big (and the sky small), or the sky needs to be big (and the land small).

    This is one of a series of images I took over the course of five years that I refer to as my Big Sky series (many of which were taken in the Big Sky state, Montana, though this one is in the state just below it: Wyoming). My decision is usually made easy by a simple question: what dominates what? In this case, the sky is obviously bigger and more dramatic than one of the most dramatic mountain ranges in the US.

    So it's got to be a Big Sky shot, not a Big Land shot.

    I wish I had been more into panoramas and had a really high resolution sensor when this situation happened back in 2002. What you can't see is what's going on to the right and also in back of me, which was just as dramatic, maybe even more so. Indeed, a few minutes after this shot I found myself in the middle of a wild horse stampede, a sight and sound I'll never forget.

    I chose this shot, though, due to the iconic mountains over the slightly less iconic and dramatic peaks to the right, because it says something: the grandest peak (pardon the pun) in the range is a mere trifle compared to just this one single downdraft. Moreover, the peak's and downdraft's shape mirror one another.

    Note the date. I need to rework the image with everything I've learned about post processing over the years: the highlights are a bit rough, and I'm sure I could pull a bit more contrast out of the mountains, as well. Yep, not only have cameras gotten better since 2002, so have I.
  • 64 plusses - 28 comments - 16 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-06 16:22:50
    How Much Dynamic Range Do You Need?

    If you thought last week's discussion was heated, this one will probably contribute to global warming. This week's image, by the way, was taken with a Nikon V1.

    By my calculations, I needed a minimum of three more stops of dynamic range to fully open up the shadows on the left side, even more to get fine detail on the shady right side. Even then, given the low light and the small sensor, I'd be fighting with not enough electrons.

    Or maybe not. I've deliberately left this rendering dark for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provoke a discussion of dynamic range;~). Second, it was dark. Not only is there no internal lighting during the day in most of this Quito church, but it was late in the day and the sky was full of menacing rain clouds. The feeling you got inside the church was pretty much what the designers probably intended: look up at the stained glass and the light from above. Thus, I've tried to express that in my post processing.

    But let's say I had a camera that gave me unlimited dynamic range. What would happen then? I'd still have to post process, because our output media (prints, displays) has limited dynamic range capability. Anyone who talks about wanting more dynamic range also has to confess that they're a tonal rearranger. 14 stops of dynamic range rendered straight will look very flat in a print. Post processed correctly, it will look, well, dynamic.

    So that brings me to this: the V1 is a small-sensor camera with little dynamic range, right? This image, though, proves it has more than enough for very tough subjects. Say what? Well, that wall on the right? It's post processed +3 stops and then carefully brought down in tonal value to where I want it. The stained glass you're looking at? Post processed -2 stops with 100% recovery. So whatever the base dynamic range of the V1 in a regular conversion, I've actually extended it 5 stops here via my post processing. And then, in order to recreate the visual impact of a church interior lit only by ambient light coming through stained glass, I actually took a lot of that dynamic range and either removed it in places, or moved it more than a stop in tonal position.

    Is there noise? Surprisingly, not really. I didn't use any noise reduction at all in the conversion or post processing. There is a slight blockiness to the deep shadow detail that I've had to spend some extra time working on, but in a 24" print of this I doubt anyone would really expect it was an image taken with a small sensor camera.
  • 48 plusses - 59 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-06 16:22:50
    How Much Dynamic Range Do You Need?

    If you thought last week's discussion was heated, this one will probably contribute to global warming. This week's image, by the way, was taken with a Nikon V1.

    By my calculations, I needed a minimum of three more stops of dynamic range to fully open up the shadows on the left side, even more to get fine detail on the shady right side. Even then, given the low light and the small sensor, I'd be fighting with not enough electrons.

    Or maybe not. I've deliberately left this rendering dark for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provoke a discussion of dynamic range;~). Second, it was dark. Not only is there no internal lighting during the day in most of this Quito church, but it was late in the day and the sky was full of menacing rain clouds. The feeling you got inside the church was pretty much what the designers probably intended: look up at the stained glass and the light from above. Thus, I've tried to express that in my post processing.

    But let's say I had a camera that gave me unlimited dynamic range. What would happen then? I'd still have to post process, because our output media (prints, displays) has limited dynamic range capability. Anyone who talks about wanting more dynamic range also has to confess that they're a tonal rearranger. 14 stops of dynamic range rendered straight will look very flat in a print. Post processed correctly, it will look, well, dynamic.

    So that brings me to this: the V1 is a small-sensor camera with little dynamic range, right? This image, though, proves it has more than enough for very tough subjects. Say what? Well, that wall on the right? It's post processed +3 stops and then carefully brought down in tonal value to where I want it. The stained glass you're looking at? Post processed -2 stops with 100% recovery. So whatever the base dynamic range of the V1 in a regular conversion, I've actually extended it 5 stops here via my post processing. And then, in order to recreate the visual impact of a church interior lit only by ambient light coming through stained glass, I actually took a lot of that dynamic range and either removed it in places, or moved it more than a stop in tonal position.

    Is there noise? Surprisingly, not really. I didn't use any noise reduction at all in the conversion or post processing. There is a slight blockiness to the deep shadow detail that I've had to spend some extra time working on, but in a 24" print of this I doubt anyone would really expect it was an image taken with a small sensor camera.
  • 48 plusses - 59 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-06 16:22:50
    How Much Dynamic Range Do You Need?

    If you thought last week's discussion was heated, this one will probably contribute to global warming. This week's image, by the way, was taken with a Nikon V1.

    By my calculations, I needed a minimum of three more stops of dynamic range to fully open up the shadows on the left side, even more to get fine detail on the shady right side. Even then, given the low light and the small sensor, I'd be fighting with not enough electrons.

    Or maybe not. I've deliberately left this rendering dark for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provoke a discussion of dynamic range;~). Second, it was dark. Not only is there no internal lighting during the day in most of this Quito church, but it was late in the day and the sky was full of menacing rain clouds. The feeling you got inside the church was pretty much what the designers probably intended: look up at the stained glass and the light from above. Thus, I've tried to express that in my post processing.

    But let's say I had a camera that gave me unlimited dynamic range. What would happen then? I'd still have to post process, because our output media (prints, displays) has limited dynamic range capability. Anyone who talks about wanting more dynamic range also has to confess that they're a tonal rearranger. 14 stops of dynamic range rendered straight will look very flat in a print. Post processed correctly, it will look, well, dynamic.

    So that brings me to this: the V1 is a small-sensor camera with little dynamic range, right? This image, though, proves it has more than enough for very tough subjects. Say what? Well, that wall on the right? It's post processed +3 stops and then carefully brought down in tonal value to where I want it. The stained glass you're looking at? Post processed -2 stops with 100% recovery. So whatever the base dynamic range of the V1 in a regular conversion, I've actually extended it 5 stops here via my post processing. And then, in order to recreate the visual impact of a church interior lit only by ambient light coming through stained glass, I actually took a lot of that dynamic range and either removed it in places, or moved it more than a stop in tonal position.

    Is there noise? Surprisingly, not really. I didn't use any noise reduction at all in the conversion or post processing. There is a slight blockiness to the deep shadow detail that I've had to spend some extra time working on, but in a 24" print of this I doubt anyone would really expect it was an image taken with a small sensor camera.
  • 48 plusses - 59 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-06 16:22:50
    How Much Dynamic Range Do You Need?

    If you thought last week's discussion was heated, this one will probably contribute to global warming. This week's image, by the way, was taken with a Nikon V1.

    By my calculations, I needed a minimum of three more stops of dynamic range to fully open up the shadows on the left side, even more to get fine detail on the shady right side. Even then, given the low light and the small sensor, I'd be fighting with not enough electrons.

    Or maybe not. I've deliberately left this rendering dark for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provoke a discussion of dynamic range;~). Second, it was dark. Not only is there no internal lighting during the day in most of this Quito church, but it was late in the day and the sky was full of menacing rain clouds. The feeling you got inside the church was pretty much what the designers probably intended: look up at the stained glass and the light from above. Thus, I've tried to express that in my post processing.

    But let's say I had a camera that gave me unlimited dynamic range. What would happen then? I'd still have to post process, because our output media (prints, displays) has limited dynamic range capability. Anyone who talks about wanting more dynamic range also has to confess that they're a tonal rearranger. 14 stops of dynamic range rendered straight will look very flat in a print. Post processed correctly, it will look, well, dynamic.

    So that brings me to this: the V1 is a small-sensor camera with little dynamic range, right? This image, though, proves it has more than enough for very tough subjects. Say what? Well, that wall on the right? It's post processed +3 stops and then carefully brought down in tonal value to where I want it. The stained glass you're looking at? Post processed -2 stops with 100% recovery. So whatever the base dynamic range of the V1 in a regular conversion, I've actually extended it 5 stops here via my post processing. And then, in order to recreate the visual impact of a church interior lit only by ambient light coming through stained glass, I actually took a lot of that dynamic range and either removed it in places, or moved it more than a stop in tonal position.

    Is there noise? Surprisingly, not really. I didn't use any noise reduction at all in the conversion or post processing. There is a slight blockiness to the deep shadow detail that I've had to spend some extra time working on, but in a 24" print of this I doubt anyone would really expect it was an image taken with a small sensor camera.
  • 48 plusses - 59 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-06 16:22:50
    How Much Dynamic Range Do You Need?

    If you thought last week's discussion was heated, this one will probably contribute to global warming. This week's image, by the way, was taken with a Nikon V1.

    By my calculations, I needed a minimum of three more stops of dynamic range to fully open up the shadows on the left side, even more to get fine detail on the shady right side. Even then, given the low light and the small sensor, I'd be fighting with not enough electrons.

    Or maybe not. I've deliberately left this rendering dark for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provoke a discussion of dynamic range;~). Second, it was dark. Not only is there no internal lighting during the day in most of this Quito church, but it was late in the day and the sky was full of menacing rain clouds. The feeling you got inside the church was pretty much what the designers probably intended: look up at the stained glass and the light from above. Thus, I've tried to express that in my post processing.

    But let's say I had a camera that gave me unlimited dynamic range. What would happen then? I'd still have to post process, because our output media (prints, displays) has limited dynamic range capability. Anyone who talks about wanting more dynamic range also has to confess that they're a tonal rearranger. 14 stops of dynamic range rendered straight will look very flat in a print. Post processed correctly, it will look, well, dynamic.

    So that brings me to this: the V1 is a small-sensor camera with little dynamic range, right? This image, though, proves it has more than enough for very tough subjects. Say what? Well, that wall on the right? It's post processed +3 stops and then carefully brought down in tonal value to where I want it. The stained glass you're looking at? Post processed -2 stops with 100% recovery. So whatever the base dynamic range of the V1 in a regular conversion, I've actually extended it 5 stops here via my post processing. And then, in order to recreate the visual impact of a church interior lit only by ambient light coming through stained glass, I actually took a lot of that dynamic range and either removed it in places, or moved it more than a stop in tonal position.

    Is there noise? Surprisingly, not really. I didn't use any noise reduction at all in the conversion or post processing. There is a slight blockiness to the deep shadow detail that I've had to spend some extra time working on, but in a 24" print of this I doubt anyone would really expect it was an image taken with a small sensor camera.
  • 48 plusses - 59 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-06 16:22:50
    How Much Dynamic Range Do You Need?

    If you thought last week's discussion was heated, this one will probably contribute to global warming. This week's image, by the way, was taken with a Nikon V1.

    By my calculations, I needed a minimum of three more stops of dynamic range to fully open up the shadows on the left side, even more to get fine detail on the shady right side. Even then, given the low light and the small sensor, I'd be fighting with not enough electrons.

    Or maybe not. I've deliberately left this rendering dark for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provoke a discussion of dynamic range;~). Second, it was dark. Not only is there no internal lighting during the day in most of this Quito church, but it was late in the day and the sky was full of menacing rain clouds. The feeling you got inside the church was pretty much what the designers probably intended: look up at the stained glass and the light from above. Thus, I've tried to express that in my post processing.

    But let's say I had a camera that gave me unlimited dynamic range. What would happen then? I'd still have to post process, because our output media (prints, displays) has limited dynamic range capability. Anyone who talks about wanting more dynamic range also has to confess that they're a tonal rearranger. 14 stops of dynamic range rendered straight will look very flat in a print. Post processed correctly, it will look, well, dynamic.

    So that brings me to this: the V1 is a small-sensor camera with little dynamic range, right? This image, though, proves it has more than enough for very tough subjects. Say what? Well, that wall on the right? It's post processed +3 stops and then carefully brought down in tonal value to where I want it. The stained glass you're looking at? Post processed -2 stops with 100% recovery. So whatever the base dynamic range of the V1 in a regular conversion, I've actually extended it 5 stops here via my post processing. And then, in order to recreate the visual impact of a church interior lit only by ambient light coming through stained glass, I actually took a lot of that dynamic range and either removed it in places, or moved it more than a stop in tonal position.

    Is there noise? Surprisingly, not really. I didn't use any noise reduction at all in the conversion or post processing. There is a slight blockiness to the deep shadow detail that I've had to spend some extra time working on, but in a 24" print of this I doubt anyone would really expect it was an image taken with a small sensor camera.
  • 48 plusses - 59 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-02-06 16:22:50
    How Much Dynamic Range Do You Need?

    If you thought last week's discussion was heated, this one will probably contribute to global warming. This week's image, by the way, was taken with a Nikon V1.

    By my calculations, I needed a minimum of three more stops of dynamic range to fully open up the shadows on the left side, even more to get fine detail on the shady right side. Even then, given the low light and the small sensor, I'd be fighting with not enough electrons.

    Or maybe not. I've deliberately left this rendering dark for a couple of reasons. First, I want to provoke a discussion of dynamic range;~). Second, it was dark. Not only is there no internal lighting during the day in most of this Quito church, but it was late in the day and the sky was full of menacing rain clouds. The feeling you got inside the church was pretty much what the designers probably intended: look up at the stained glass and the light from above. Thus, I've tried to express that in my post processing.

    But let's say I had a camera that gave me unlimited dynamic range. What would happen then? I'd still have to post process, because our output media (prints, displays) has limited dynamic range capability. Anyone who talks about wanting more dynamic range also has to confess that they're a tonal rearranger. 14 stops of dynamic range rendered straight will look very flat in a print. Post processed correctly, it will look, well, dynamic.

    So that brings me to this: the V1 is a small-sensor camera with little dynamic range, right? This image, though, proves it has more than enough for very tough subjects. Say what? Well, that wall on the right? It's post processed +3 stops and then carefully brought down in tonal value to where I want it. The stained glass you're looking at? Post processed -2 stops with 100% recovery. So whatever the base dynamic range of the V1 in a regular conversion, I've actually extended it 5 stops here via my post processing. And then, in order to recreate the visual impact of a church interior lit only by ambient light coming through stained glass, I actually took a lot of that dynamic range and either removed it in places, or moved it more than a stop in tonal position.

    Is there noise? Surprisingly, not really. I didn't use any noise reduction at all in the conversion or post processing. There is a slight blockiness to the deep shadow detail that I've had to spend some extra time working on, but in a 24" print of this I doubt anyone would really expect it was an image taken with a small sensor camera.
  • 48 plusses - 59 comments - 9 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-01 18:56:57
    And Now for Something Completely Different. Canon G11, IR converted. I've been hesitating about posting this image for quite some time now. I took it earlier this spring while photographing a Colorado mountain biking group. This image was taken right at the end of the session when things were winding down, riders were cooling off, and everyone's "posing guard" was mostly down. I've been showing a lot of images lately with "mystery" in them, and this is yet another. Who is this? Why is she dressed like this? Where are we? How did she get here? While it might look like she's shot putting, she's actually pivoting on response to a pose request from another photographer off to the right. I have plenty of pictures of her posed and more conventionally framed, including some with her and her bike, but both she and I like this one the best. I actually grabbed my IR converted G11 out of my pocket instead of using the D3s hanging around my neck for several reasons, but the primary thing was that she was a very bright object that was going to get framed against a very bright background and sky. I knew her upper body would be in deep contrast against an IR sky, and I felt that contrast was going to be an important element in this image. It turned out to be a good decision: she pops off the background better than I imagined.
  • 61 plusses - 39 comments - 8 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-01 18:56:57
    And Now for Something Completely Different. Canon G11, IR converted. I've been hesitating about posting this image for quite some time now. I took it earlier this spring while photographing a Colorado mountain biking group. This image was taken right at the end of the session when things were winding down, riders were cooling off, and everyone's "posing guard" was mostly down. I've been showing a lot of images lately with "mystery" in them, and this is yet another. Who is this? Why is she dressed like this? Where are we? How did she get here? While it might look like she's shot putting, she's actually pivoting on response to a pose request from another photographer off to the right. I have plenty of pictures of her posed and more conventionally framed, including some with her and her bike, but both she and I like this one the best. I actually grabbed my IR converted G11 out of my pocket instead of using the D3s hanging around my neck for several reasons, but the primary thing was that she was a very bright object that was going to get framed against a very bright background and sky. I knew her upper body would be in deep contrast against an IR sky, and I felt that contrast was going to be an important element in this image. It turned out to be a good decision: she pops off the background better than I imagined.
  • 61 plusses - 39 comments - 8 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-01 18:56:57
    And Now for Something Completely Different. Canon G11, IR converted. I've been hesitating about posting this image for quite some time now. I took it earlier this spring while photographing a Colorado mountain biking group. This image was taken right at the end of the session when things were winding down, riders were cooling off, and everyone's "posing guard" was mostly down. I've been showing a lot of images lately with "mystery" in them, and this is yet another. Who is this? Why is she dressed like this? Where are we? How did she get here? While it might look like she's shot putting, she's actually pivoting on response to a pose request from another photographer off to the right. I have plenty of pictures of her posed and more conventionally framed, including some with her and her bike, but both she and I like this one the best. I actually grabbed my IR converted G11 out of my pocket instead of using the D3s hanging around my neck for several reasons, but the primary thing was that she was a very bright object that was going to get framed against a very bright background and sky. I knew her upper body would be in deep contrast against an IR sky, and I felt that contrast was going to be an important element in this image. It turned out to be a good decision: she pops off the background better than I imagined.
  • 61 plusses - 39 comments - 8 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-01 18:56:57
    And Now for Something Completely Different. Canon G11, IR converted. I've been hesitating about posting this image for quite some time now. I took it earlier this spring while photographing a Colorado mountain biking group. This image was taken right at the end of the session when things were winding down, riders were cooling off, and everyone's "posing guard" was mostly down. I've been showing a lot of images lately with "mystery" in them, and this is yet another. Who is this? Why is she dressed like this? Where are we? How did she get here? While it might look like she's shot putting, she's actually pivoting on response to a pose request from another photographer off to the right. I have plenty of pictures of her posed and more conventionally framed, including some with her and her bike, but both she and I like this one the best. I actually grabbed my IR converted G11 out of my pocket instead of using the D3s hanging around my neck for several reasons, but the primary thing was that she was a very bright object that was going to get framed against a very bright background and sky. I knew her upper body would be in deep contrast against an IR sky, and I felt that contrast was going to be an important element in this image. It turned out to be a good decision: she pops off the background better than I imagined.
  • 61 plusses - 39 comments - 8 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-01 18:56:57
    And Now for Something Completely Different. Canon G11, IR converted. I've been hesitating about posting this image for quite some time now. I took it earlier this spring while photographing a Colorado mountain biking group. This image was taken right at the end of the session when things were winding down, riders were cooling off, and everyone's "posing guard" was mostly down. I've been showing a lot of images lately with "mystery" in them, and this is yet another. Who is this? Why is she dressed like this? Where are we? How did she get here? While it might look like she's shot putting, she's actually pivoting on response to a pose request from another photographer off to the right. I have plenty of pictures of her posed and more conventionally framed, including some with her and her bike, but both she and I like this one the best. I actually grabbed my IR converted G11 out of my pocket instead of using the D3s hanging around my neck for several reasons, but the primary thing was that she was a very bright object that was going to get framed against a very bright background and sky. I knew her upper body would be in deep contrast against an IR sky, and I felt that contrast was going to be an important element in this image. It turned out to be a good decision: she pops off the background better than I imagined.
  • 61 plusses - 39 comments - 8 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-01 18:56:57
    And Now for Something Completely Different. Canon G11, IR converted. I've been hesitating about posting this image for quite some time now. I took it earlier this spring while photographing a Colorado mountain biking group. This image was taken right at the end of the session when things were winding down, riders were cooling off, and everyone's "posing guard" was mostly down. I've been showing a lot of images lately with "mystery" in them, and this is yet another. Who is this? Why is she dressed like this? Where are we? How did she get here? While it might look like she's shot putting, she's actually pivoting on response to a pose request from another photographer off to the right. I have plenty of pictures of her posed and more conventionally framed, including some with her and her bike, but both she and I like this one the best. I actually grabbed my IR converted G11 out of my pocket instead of using the D3s hanging around my neck for several reasons, but the primary thing was that she was a very bright object that was going to get framed against a very bright background and sky. I knew her upper body would be in deep contrast against an IR sky, and I felt that contrast was going to be an important element in this image. It turned out to be a good decision: she pops off the background better than I imagined.
  • 61 plusses - 39 comments - 8 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-08-01 18:56:57
    And Now for Something Completely Different. Canon G11, IR converted. I've been hesitating about posting this image for quite some time now. I took it earlier this spring while photographing a Colorado mountain biking group. This image was taken right at the end of the session when things were winding down, riders were cooling off, and everyone's "posing guard" was mostly down. I've been showing a lot of images lately with "mystery" in them, and this is yet another. Who is this? Why is she dressed like this? Where are we? How did she get here? While it might look like she's shot putting, she's actually pivoting on response to a pose request from another photographer off to the right. I have plenty of pictures of her posed and more conventionally framed, including some with her and her bike, but both she and I like this one the best. I actually grabbed my IR converted G11 out of my pocket instead of using the D3s hanging around my neck for several reasons, but the primary thing was that she was a very bright object that was going to get framed against a very bright background and sky. I knew her upper body would be in deep contrast against an IR sky, and I felt that contrast was going to be an important element in this image. It turned out to be a good decision: she pops off the background better than I imagined.
  • 61 plusses - 39 comments - 8 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-19 22:10:34
    Timing

    Nikon V1 NEF.

    One of the problems with small cameras has traditionally been that they're just not as responsive as DSLRs. The lack of responsiveness comes in multiple forms: lag in the LCD used for framing, shutter release lag, and focus acquisition slowness. Press button, wait to see if you got the moment, and when you 99% of the time don't, swear at the camera and vow to buy a DSLR.

    Recent technology changes are making that a thing of the past. The Nikon 1 directly addresses all three issues. Enough so that missing the timing is now pretty much the photographer's fault, just as it is with DSLRs. Does that mean you can get birds in flight shots? You'll have to wait for my review to find that answer. But of all the things that come up with the cameras I'm in the midst of testing now (Nikon 1, Olympus E-P3, Panasonic G3, Sony NEX 5N), they all do pretty well in regards timing. Certainly far better than we've been exposed to with lower end and smaller cameras in the past. Most of the failures now come in other areas.

    Now, to the image at hand: this was a matter of me waiting out the seal. Too many people come to a spot, look at the shots that exist at the moment, don't see one, and then move on. I come to a spot and look at the potential for shots, consider what it might take to get them, and simply wait until the right things happen before taking an image. In this instance I saw a seal coming out of the water obviously heading for some sun time on the rocks. I saw that the ocean waves were sometimes breaking farther up the rocks than the seal had so far attained (I noted that from the wet marks). I therefore imagined what would happen when a big wave set hit before the seal was where he wanted to be. I wasn't disappointed.

    The other thing that happens when you work this way is that you can deal with other decisions without haste. What lens? What exposure? What shutter speed? What focus point? All those things were locked firmly in place while I waited. It didn't take more than five minutes of waiting to get this.

    Simple truth: if you're completely counting on your spontaneous reaction time to both seeing and then taking a shot, you'll probably miss the shot near 100% of the time. Your mind must be working ahead of reality and anticipating. That's true of sports, wildlife, street, and many other forms of photography.
  • 57 plusses - 40 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-19 22:10:34
    Timing

    Nikon V1 NEF.

    One of the problems with small cameras has traditionally been that they're just not as responsive as DSLRs. The lack of responsiveness comes in multiple forms: lag in the LCD used for framing, shutter release lag, and focus acquisition slowness. Press button, wait to see if you got the moment, and when you 99% of the time don't, swear at the camera and vow to buy a DSLR.

    Recent technology changes are making that a thing of the past. The Nikon 1 directly addresses all three issues. Enough so that missing the timing is now pretty much the photographer's fault, just as it is with DSLRs. Does that mean you can get birds in flight shots? You'll have to wait for my review to find that answer. But of all the things that come up with the cameras I'm in the midst of testing now (Nikon 1, Olympus E-P3, Panasonic G3, Sony NEX 5N), they all do pretty well in regards timing. Certainly far better than we've been exposed to with lower end and smaller cameras in the past. Most of the failures now come in other areas.

    Now, to the image at hand: this was a matter of me waiting out the seal. Too many people come to a spot, look at the shots that exist at the moment, don't see one, and then move on. I come to a spot and look at the potential for shots, consider what it might take to get them, and simply wait until the right things happen before taking an image. In this instance I saw a seal coming out of the water obviously heading for some sun time on the rocks. I saw that the ocean waves were sometimes breaking farther up the rocks than the seal had so far attained (I noted that from the wet marks). I therefore imagined what would happen when a big wave set hit before the seal was where he wanted to be. I wasn't disappointed.

    The other thing that happens when you work this way is that you can deal with other decisions without haste. What lens? What exposure? What shutter speed? What focus point? All those things were locked firmly in place while I waited. It didn't take more than five minutes of waiting to get this.

    Simple truth: if you're completely counting on your spontaneous reaction time to both seeing and then taking a shot, you'll probably miss the shot near 100% of the time. Your mind must be working ahead of reality and anticipating. That's true of sports, wildlife, street, and many other forms of photography.
  • 57 plusses - 40 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-19 22:10:34
    Timing

    Nikon V1 NEF.

    One of the problems with small cameras has traditionally been that they're just not as responsive as DSLRs. The lack of responsiveness comes in multiple forms: lag in the LCD used for framing, shutter release lag, and focus acquisition slowness. Press button, wait to see if you got the moment, and when you 99% of the time don't, swear at the camera and vow to buy a DSLR.

    Recent technology changes are making that a thing of the past. The Nikon 1 directly addresses all three issues. Enough so that missing the timing is now pretty much the photographer's fault, just as it is with DSLRs. Does that mean you can get birds in flight shots? You'll have to wait for my review to find that answer. But of all the things that come up with the cameras I'm in the midst of testing now (Nikon 1, Olympus E-P3, Panasonic G3, Sony NEX 5N), they all do pretty well in regards timing. Certainly far better than we've been exposed to with lower end and smaller cameras in the past. Most of the failures now come in other areas.

    Now, to the image at hand: this was a matter of me waiting out the seal. Too many people come to a spot, look at the shots that exist at the moment, don't see one, and then move on. I come to a spot and look at the potential for shots, consider what it might take to get them, and simply wait until the right things happen before taking an image. In this instance I saw a seal coming out of the water obviously heading for some sun time on the rocks. I saw that the ocean waves were sometimes breaking farther up the rocks than the seal had so far attained (I noted that from the wet marks). I therefore imagined what would happen when a big wave set hit before the seal was where he wanted to be. I wasn't disappointed.

    The other thing that happens when you work this way is that you can deal with other decisions without haste. What lens? What exposure? What shutter speed? What focus point? All those things were locked firmly in place while I waited. It didn't take more than five minutes of waiting to get this.

    Simple truth: if you're completely counting on your spontaneous reaction time to both seeing and then taking a shot, you'll probably miss the shot near 100% of the time. Your mind must be working ahead of reality and anticipating. That's true of sports, wildlife, street, and many other forms of photography.
  • 57 plusses - 40 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-19 22:10:34
    Timing

    Nikon V1 NEF.

    One of the problems with small cameras has traditionally been that they're just not as responsive as DSLRs. The lack of responsiveness comes in multiple forms: lag in the LCD used for framing, shutter release lag, and focus acquisition slowness. Press button, wait to see if you got the moment, and when you 99% of the time don't, swear at the camera and vow to buy a DSLR.

    Recent technology changes are making that a thing of the past. The Nikon 1 directly addresses all three issues. Enough so that missing the timing is now pretty much the photographer's fault, just as it is with DSLRs. Does that mean you can get birds in flight shots? You'll have to wait for my review to find that answer. But of all the things that come up with the cameras I'm in the midst of testing now (Nikon 1, Olympus E-P3, Panasonic G3, Sony NEX 5N), they all do pretty well in regards timing. Certainly far better than we've been exposed to with lower end and smaller cameras in the past. Most of the failures now come in other areas.

    Now, to the image at hand: this was a matter of me waiting out the seal. Too many people come to a spot, look at the shots that exist at the moment, don't see one, and then move on. I come to a spot and look at the potential for shots, consider what it might take to get them, and simply wait until the right things happen before taking an image. In this instance I saw a seal coming out of the water obviously heading for some sun time on the rocks. I saw that the ocean waves were sometimes breaking farther up the rocks than the seal had so far attained (I noted that from the wet marks). I therefore imagined what would happen when a big wave set hit before the seal was where he wanted to be. I wasn't disappointed.

    The other thing that happens when you work this way is that you can deal with other decisions without haste. What lens? What exposure? What shutter speed? What focus point? All those things were locked firmly in place while I waited. It didn't take more than five minutes of waiting to get this.

    Simple truth: if you're completely counting on your spontaneous reaction time to both seeing and then taking a shot, you'll probably miss the shot near 100% of the time. Your mind must be working ahead of reality and anticipating. That's true of sports, wildlife, street, and many other forms of photography.
  • 57 plusses - 40 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-19 22:10:34
    Timing

    Nikon V1 NEF.

    One of the problems with small cameras has traditionally been that they're just not as responsive as DSLRs. The lack of responsiveness comes in multiple forms: lag in the LCD used for framing, shutter release lag, and focus acquisition slowness. Press button, wait to see if you got the moment, and when you 99% of the time don't, swear at the camera and vow to buy a DSLR.

    Recent technology changes are making that a thing of the past. The Nikon 1 directly addresses all three issues. Enough so that missing the timing is now pretty much the photographer's fault, just as it is with DSLRs. Does that mean you can get birds in flight shots? You'll have to wait for my review to find that answer. But of all the things that come up with the cameras I'm in the midst of testing now (Nikon 1, Olympus E-P3, Panasonic G3, Sony NEX 5N), they all do pretty well in regards timing. Certainly far better than we've been exposed to with lower end and smaller cameras in the past. Most of the failures now come in other areas.

    Now, to the image at hand: this was a matter of me waiting out the seal. Too many people come to a spot, look at the shots that exist at the moment, don't see one, and then move on. I come to a spot and look at the potential for shots, consider what it might take to get them, and simply wait until the right things happen before taking an image. In this instance I saw a seal coming out of the water obviously heading for some sun time on the rocks. I saw that the ocean waves were sometimes breaking farther up the rocks than the seal had so far attained (I noted that from the wet marks). I therefore imagined what would happen when a big wave set hit before the seal was where he wanted to be. I wasn't disappointed.

    The other thing that happens when you work this way is that you can deal with other decisions without haste. What lens? What exposure? What shutter speed? What focus point? All those things were locked firmly in place while I waited. It didn't take more than five minutes of waiting to get this.

    Simple truth: if you're completely counting on your spontaneous reaction time to both seeing and then taking a shot, you'll probably miss the shot near 100% of the time. Your mind must be working ahead of reality and anticipating. That's true of sports, wildlife, street, and many other forms of photography.
  • 57 plusses - 40 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-19 22:10:34
    Timing

    Nikon V1 NEF.

    One of the problems with small cameras has traditionally been that they're just not as responsive as DSLRs. The lack of responsiveness comes in multiple forms: lag in the LCD used for framing, shutter release lag, and focus acquisition slowness. Press button, wait to see if you got the moment, and when you 99% of the time don't, swear at the camera and vow to buy a DSLR.

    Recent technology changes are making that a thing of the past. The Nikon 1 directly addresses all three issues. Enough so that missing the timing is now pretty much the photographer's fault, just as it is with DSLRs. Does that mean you can get birds in flight shots? You'll have to wait for my review to find that answer. But of all the things that come up with the cameras I'm in the midst of testing now (Nikon 1, Olympus E-P3, Panasonic G3, Sony NEX 5N), they all do pretty well in regards timing. Certainly far better than we've been exposed to with lower end and smaller cameras in the past. Most of the failures now come in other areas.

    Now, to the image at hand: this was a matter of me waiting out the seal. Too many people come to a spot, look at the shots that exist at the moment, don't see one, and then move on. I come to a spot and look at the potential for shots, consider what it might take to get them, and simply wait until the right things happen before taking an image. In this instance I saw a seal coming out of the water obviously heading for some sun time on the rocks. I saw that the ocean waves were sometimes breaking farther up the rocks than the seal had so far attained (I noted that from the wet marks). I therefore imagined what would happen when a big wave set hit before the seal was where he wanted to be. I wasn't disappointed.

    The other thing that happens when you work this way is that you can deal with other decisions without haste. What lens? What exposure? What shutter speed? What focus point? All those things were locked firmly in place while I waited. It didn't take more than five minutes of waiting to get this.

    Simple truth: if you're completely counting on your spontaneous reaction time to both seeing and then taking a shot, you'll probably miss the shot near 100% of the time. Your mind must be working ahead of reality and anticipating. That's true of sports, wildlife, street, and many other forms of photography.
  • 57 plusses - 40 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2011-11-19 22:10:34
    Timing

    Nikon V1 NEF.

    One of the problems with small cameras has traditionally been that they're just not as responsive as DSLRs. The lack of responsiveness comes in multiple forms: lag in the LCD used for framing, shutter release lag, and focus acquisition slowness. Press button, wait to see if you got the moment, and when you 99% of the time don't, swear at the camera and vow to buy a DSLR.

    Recent technology changes are making that a thing of the past. The Nikon 1 directly addresses all three issues. Enough so that missing the timing is now pretty much the photographer's fault, just as it is with DSLRs. Does that mean you can get birds in flight shots? You'll have to wait for my review to find that answer. But of all the things that come up with the cameras I'm in the midst of testing now (Nikon 1, Olympus E-P3, Panasonic G3, Sony NEX 5N), they all do pretty well in regards timing. Certainly far better than we've been exposed to with lower end and smaller cameras in the past. Most of the failures now come in other areas.

    Now, to the image at hand: this was a matter of me waiting out the seal. Too many people come to a spot, look at the shots that exist at the moment, don't see one, and then move on. I come to a spot and look at the potential for shots, consider what it might take to get them, and simply wait until the right things happen before taking an image. In this instance I saw a seal coming out of the water obviously heading for some sun time on the rocks. I saw that the ocean waves were sometimes breaking farther up the rocks than the seal had so far attained (I noted that from the wet marks). I therefore imagined what would happen when a big wave set hit before the seal was where he wanted to be. I wasn't disappointed.

    The other thing that happens when you work this way is that you can deal with other decisions without haste. What lens? What exposure? What shutter speed? What focus point? All those things were locked firmly in place while I waited. It didn't take more than five minutes of waiting to get this.

    Simple truth: if you're completely counting on your spontaneous reaction time to both seeing and then taking a shot, you'll probably miss the shot near 100% of the time. Your mind must be working ahead of reality and anticipating. That's true of sports, wildlife, street, and many other forms of photography.
  • 57 plusses - 40 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-03-19 16:24:44
    Practice

    G1x image.

    I probably walk the terminal connector at O'Hare airport more than a dozen times a year. If you've never see Sky's the Limit by Michael Hayden, just know that it's a target rich environment for a photographer. Target rich environments are perfect for practicing photography.

    Practicing photography is defined as taking photographs solely to improve your skill and craft set--you have no other purpose or particular output in mind. If you threw away all the photos from a practice session, it shouldn't bother you. On the other hand, sometimes you make some pretty darned good images from practice, and you do keep them.

    I make it a point to spend at least 15 minutes every time I'm at O'Hare to do some photography in this connecting tunnel. I give myself two assignments: (1) find some way to capture a photograph I haven't done before in this place; and (2) work on timing and composition for something I've done before and see if I can top it.

    In this particular shot I was working on variations of timing (#2). I've come up with at least six different variations on this image that I like and which convey different things. But I was mostly practicing timing the exact moment to press the shutter release on a new camera (learning its shutter lag).

    So here's today bonus: if I put this lone walker on the right instead of the left, what happens? Is a left walker in more of a hurry than a right walker? Is a left walker closer to their destination than a right walker? Is a left walker more solitary than a right walker? Why symmetrical framing with asymmetrical subject? Why only a single subject? Why is the right heel lifted?

    Now you know some of what I was thinking about as I was practicing my shutter lag on a new camera between flights this time.

    Find your own place that you visit regularly at which you can practice photography. You don't need to visit it every day (though the more you practice, the better you should get), but you need to visit it regularly. It needs to be photo rich, a place where you keep finding new photographic opportunities. It needs to be convenient or else you'll never go there to practice. As I noted above, I typically only spend about fifteen minutes. So you don't have to spend a lot of time, you just have to do it often. It's a very useful fifteen minutes, and it makes me a better photographer.
  • 56 plusses - 32 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Thom Hogan2012-03-19 16:24:44
    Practice

    G1x image.

    I probably walk the terminal connector at O'Hare airport more than a dozen times a year. If you've never see Sky's the Limit by Michael Hayden, just know that it's a target rich environment for a photographer. Target rich environments are perfect for practicing photography.

    Practicing photography is defined as taking photographs solely to improve your skill and craft set--you have no other purpose or particular output in mind. If you threw away all the photos from a practice session, it shouldn't bother you. On the other hand, sometimes you make some pretty darned good images from practice, and you do keep them.

    I make it a point to spend at least 15 minutes every time I'm at O'Hare to do some photography in this connecting tunnel. I give myself two assignments: (1) find some way to capture a photograph I haven't done before in this place; and (2) work on timing and composition for something I've done before and see if I can top it.

    In this particular shot I was working on variations of timing (#2). I've come up with at least six different variations on this image that I like and which convey different things. But I was mostly practicing timing the exact moment to press the shutter release on a new camera (learning its shutter lag).

    So here's today bonus: if I put this lone walker on the right instead of the left, what happens? Is a left walker in more of a hurry than a right walker? Is a left walker closer to their destination than a right walker? Is a left walker more solitary than a right walker? Why symmetrical framing with asymmetrical subject? Why only a single subject? Why is the right heel lifted?

    Now you know some of what I was thinking about as I was practicing my shutter lag on a new camera between flights this time.

    Find your own place that you visit regularly at which you can practice photography. You don't need to visit it every day (though the more you practice, the better you should get), but you need to visit it regularly. It needs to be photo rich, a place where you keep finding new photographic opportunities. It needs to be convenient or else you'll never go there to practice. As I noted above, I typically only spend about fifteen minutes. So you don't have to spend a lot of time, you just have to do it often. It's a very useful fifteen minutes, and it makes me a better photographer.
  • 56 plusses - 32 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+